[RFC] i.MX: drop secondary clocks

[Richard Zhao]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sascha Hauer writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:32:30AM +0100, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Sascha Hauer writes:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > > 
> [...]
> > > I think that's a bad idea! Drivers should not have to know intimate
> > > details about the clock logic of the CPU core they are running on!
> > 
> > They don't have to. There really are different clocks connected to the
> > devices. If for example you have a look eSDHC Block diagram in the
> > reference Manual  you'll see that this has three clock inputs. All
> > we do is to tell the driver about these three clocks which are device
> > specific and not SoC specific. Which of these clocks are actually
> > gatetable varies from SoC to SoC. Also on some SoCs two of the three
> > clocks may be actually the same.
> > 
> At least this should be done in a way that is independent from the
> name of the clock on a specific SoC, but is related to the function of
> the clock for the driver. Thus instead of e.g. CLK_IPG and CLK_PER use
> CLK_REG and CLK_BITRATE.
> 
> > > They should simply request a clock for the unit they operate on and
> > > the clock core code should figure out which other clocks need to be
> > > enabled on a specific machine to get the unit working.
> > 
> > Yes, that's what we want to do, except that devices do not need 'a'
> > clock but several. And the clock core figures out which other clocks
> > have to be activated, these are the parent clocks.
> > 
> What about devices which have multiple 'parent' clocks that are
> completely unrelated wrt. each other? In the current clock system you
> can model this by having secondary clocks.
> How would you represent the current structure on i.MX53:
> uart_ipg_clk <- aips_tz1_clk <-+- ahb_clk
>                                +-> ahb_max_clk
> in the new model?
> Should every driver have to request the ahb_max_clk in addition to the
> uart_ipg_clk?
Right. binding bus clock and device core clock together is only one of the
use cases of secondary clock. Sascha, I remember we ever talked about it?
Back to the above example, it's caused by bus topology. It needs other
code, maybe busfreq, to support it, and leaving clock code pure.

Thanks
Richard
> 
> What, if you have a device on a number of SoCs with a certain set of
> clocks, but on a later SoC another clock is required for the device?
> You would not only have to change the driver to add the new clock but
> also would have to add that clock as a dummy clock in the core clock
> code for all previous SoCs that did not provide that clock.
> 
> > I also don't really like exposing this to the drivers, but it's a clean
> > way to do so. A framebuffer driver needs a pixel clock which must be
> > enabled when the display is turned on. It may also have a register clock
> > which has to be turned on when we want to access registers. These are
> > two different clocks and the driver can make use of this (not that we
> > currently do though...)
> > 
> But we could do so without any problem.
> 
> 
> Lothar Waßmann
> -- 
> ___________________________________________________________
> 
> Ka-Ro electronics GmbH | Pascalstraße 22 | D - 52076 Aachen
> Phone: +49 2408 1402-0 | Fax: +49 2408 1402-10
> Geschäftsführer: Matthias Kaussen
> Handelsregistereintrag: Amtsgericht Aachen, HRB 4996
> 
> www.karo-electronics.de | info at karo-electronics.de
> ___________________________________________________________