[PATCH 04/19] clk: sunxi: Add TCON channel1 clock
wens at csie.org
Sun Nov 8 19:36:15 PST 2015
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 05:53:26PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Maxime Ripard
>> <maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> > The TCON is a controller generating the timings to output videos signals,
>> > acting like both a CRTC and an encoder.
>> > It has two channels depending on the output, each channel being driven by
>> > its own clock (and own clock controller).
>> > Add a driver for the channel 1 clock.
>> > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/clk/sunxi/Makefile | 1 +
>> > drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun4i-tcon-ch1.c | 167 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > 2 files changed, 168 insertions(+)
>> > create mode 100644 drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun4i-tcon-ch1.c
>> According to the documents I have, this variant of the TCON clock
>> is specific to sun5i. On sun4i/sun7i, TCON CH1 clock has the same
>> layout as TCON CH0 and the other display clocks.
> At least for the A20, it's not true.
> Make sure you do not confuse LCD1 CH0 (p79, which is a channel 0
> clock), with LCD0 CH1 (p81, which is a channel 1 clock).
Right. The names are great for confusing the reader. :(
>> > + sclk1_parents = sclk2_name;
>> > + sclk1_parents = sclk2d2_name;
>> Is there any need to expose these 2 clocks via DT using of_clk_add_provider?
> No, as far as I'm aware, there's no user external to this clock
>> Note that these complex clock trees within a clock node breaks the
>> assigned-clock-parents mechanism, as you can no longer specify the output
>> clock's direct parents.
> There's no point of changing the parent either. Hardware blocks are
> always connected to the leaf clock (sclk1). We could also model it as
> an extra 1-bit divider, which would simplify a bit the logic though.
Probably not. You still have a gate to handle. It's just moving the
divider from 1 clock to the other. I think the current approach of
modeling it like the hardware is better.
About reparenting, what I meant was if sclk2 is not exposed through
of_clk_add_provider, then we can't do assigned-clocks stuff on it,
like setting a default parent or making each channel use a different
What I'm saying is if it is not expected to work with another core
binding, we should probably note it somewhere.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel