Hi Chanwoo, On 14 April 2014 14:37, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This patch control special clock for ADC in Exynos series's FSYS block. > If special clock of ADC is registerd on clock list of common clk framework, > Exynos ADC drvier have to control this clock. > > Exynos3250/Exynos4/Exynos5 has 'adc' clock as following: > - 'adc' clock: bus clock for ADC > > Exynos3250 has additional 'sclk_tsadc' clock as following: > - 'sclk_tsadc' clock: special clock for ADC which provide clock to internal ADC > > Exynos 4210/4212/4412 and Exynos5250/5420 has not included 'sclk_tsadc' clock > in FSYS_BLK. But, Exynos3250 based on Cortex-A7 has only included 'sclk_tsadc' > clock in FSYS_BLK. > > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi > Cc: linux-iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c > index d25b262..3c99243 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c > @@ -40,8 +40,9 @@ > #include <linux/iio/driver.h> > > enum adc_version { > - ADC_V1, > - ADC_V2 > + ADC_V1 = 0x1, > + ADC_V2 = 0x2, > + ADC_V3 = (ADC_V1 | ADC_V2), Can't this be simply 0x3? Or is this not really a h/w version? > }; > > /* EXYNOS4412/5250 ADC_V1 registers definitions */ > @@ -88,6 +89,7 @@ struct exynos_adc { > void __iomem *regs; > void __iomem *enable_reg; > struct clk *clk; > + struct clk *sclk; > unsigned int irq; > struct regulator *vdd; > > @@ -100,6 +102,7 @@ struct exynos_adc { > static const struct of_device_id exynos_adc_match[] = { > { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v1", .data = (void *)ADC_V1 }, > { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v2", .data = (void *)ADC_V2 }, > + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v3", .data = (void *)ADC_V3 }, > {}, > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, exynos_adc_match); > @@ -128,7 +131,7 @@ static int exynos_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); > > /* Select the channel to be used and Trigger conversion */ > - if (info->version == ADC_V2) { > + if (info->version & ADC_V2) { So, now this would be applicable for ADC_V3 too, right? > con2 = readl(ADC_V2_CON2(info->regs)); > con2 &= ~ADC_V2_CON2_ACH_MASK; > con2 |= ADC_V2_CON2_ACH_SEL(chan->address); > @@ -165,7 +168,7 @@ static irqreturn_t exynos_adc_isr(int irq, void *dev_id) > info->value = readl(ADC_V1_DATX(info->regs)) & > ADC_DATX_MASK; > /* clear irq */ > - if (info->version == ADC_V2) > + if (info->version & ADC_V2) > writel(1, ADC_V2_INT_ST(info->regs)); > else > writel(1, ADC_V1_INTCLR(info->regs)); > @@ -226,11 +229,25 @@ static int exynos_adc_remove_devices(struct device *dev, void *c) > return 0; > } > > +static void exynos_adc_enable_clock(struct exynos_adc *info, bool enable) > +{ > + if (enable) { > + clk_prepare_enable(info->clk); This could fail. Is it OK without any checks? > + if (info->version == ADC_V3) > + clk_prepare_enable(info->sclk); ditto. > + > + } else { > + if (info->version == ADC_V3) > + clk_disable_unprepare(info->sclk); > + clk_disable_unprepare(info->clk); > + } > +} > + > static void exynos_adc_hw_init(struct exynos_adc *info) > { > u32 con1, con2; > > - if (info->version == ADC_V2) { > + if (info->version & ADC_V2) { > con1 = ADC_V2_CON1_SOFT_RESET; > writel(con1, ADC_V2_CON1(info->regs)); > > @@ -300,6 +317,8 @@ static int exynos_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > writel(1, info->enable_reg); > > + info->version = exynos_adc_get_version(pdev); > + > info->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "adc"); > if (IS_ERR(info->clk)) { > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed getting clock, err = %ld\n", > @@ -308,6 +327,17 @@ static int exynos_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > goto err_irq; > } > > + if (info->version == ADC_V3) { > + info->sclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "sclk_tsadc"); > + if (IS_ERR(info->sclk)) { > + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, > + "failed getting sclk clock, err = %ld\n", > + PTR_ERR(info->sclk)); > + ret = PTR_ERR(info->sclk); nit: you could move this line above dev_warn and use 'ret' in the print statement. -- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html