[PATCH] mtd: nand: marvell: Fix clock resource by adding a register clock

[Boris Brezillon]

Hi Greg,

On Tue, 06 Mar 2018 12:04:41 +0100
Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement at bootlin.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
>  
>  On jeu., mars 01 2018, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at bootlin.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:35:53 +0100
> > Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement at bootlin.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On Armada 7K/8K we need to explicitly enable the register clock. This
> >> clock is optional because not all the SoCs using this IP need it but at
> >> least for Armada 7K/8K it is actually mandatory.
> >> 
> >> The binding documentation is updated accordingly.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement at bootlin.com>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/marvell-nand.txt |  6 +++++-
> >>  drivers/mtd/nand/marvell_nand.c                        | 14 ++++++++++++++
> >>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/marvell-nand.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/marvell-nand.txt
> >> index c08fb477b3c6..4ee9813bf88f 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/marvell-nand.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/marvell-nand.txt
> >> @@ -14,7 +14,11 @@ Required properties:
> >>  - #address-cells: shall be set to 1. Encode the NAND CS.
> >>  - #size-cells: shall be set to 0.
> >>  - interrupts: shall define the NAND controller interrupt.
> >> -- clocks: shall reference the NAND controller clock.
> >> +- clocks: shall reference the NAND controller clocks, the second one is
> >> +  optional but needed for the Armada 7K/8K SoCs
> >> +- clock-names: mandatory if there is a second clock, in this case the
> >> +   name must be "core" for the first clock and "reg" for the second
> >> +   one  
> >
> > Hm, not sure this is a good idea to impose a specific order. I know you  
> 
> It would be a problem if the use of this clock would be at dts level
> for each board. But here we only setup this property in the dtsi at SoC
> level. So enforcing the order is not a problem as the dtsi are all well
> reviewed and remains pretty rare.

I'm still not convinced this is a good idea, but okay.

> 
> > do that to avoid changing the code requesting the core clk, but I'd
> > prefer to have a solution where we first search for a clock named
> > "core" (devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "core")), and if it's missing,
> > fall back to devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL).  
> 
> I really wanted to avoid adding more code only for legacy reason.

It's adding only 2 lines:

	reg_clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "core");
	if (IS_ERR(reg_clk) && PTR_ERR(reg_clk) == -ENOENT)
		reg_clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);

> 
> >
> > Another solution would be to retrieve the reg clk only on platforms
> > that need it (based on the compatible). This way you won't have to test
> > for -ENOENT and could simply propagate the error to the upper layer.  
> 
> We can't do this because we need to be bacwkard compatible.

I don't get it. If the clock is missing in the DT, the NAND is
already not working on these platforms, right? How could we break
something that is already broken?

Regards,

Boris

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com