07.12.2019 17:28, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> 06.12.2019 05:48, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>> Tegra210 and prior Tegra PMC has clk_out_1, clk_out_2, clk_out_3 with
>> mux and gate for each of these clocks.
>>
>> Currently these PMC clocks are registered by Tegra clock driver using
>> clk_register_mux and clk_register_gate by passing PMC base address
>> and register offsets and PMC programming for these clocks happens
>> through direct PMC access by the clock driver.
>>
>> With this, when PMC is in secure mode any direct PMC access from the
>> non-secure world does not go through and these clocks will not be
>> functional.
>>
>> This patch adds these clocks registration with PMC as a clock provider
>> for these clocks. clk_ops callback implementations for these clocks
>> uses tegra_pmc_readl and tegra_pmc_writel which supports PMC programming
>> in secure mode and non-secure mode.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
[snip]
>> +
>> +static const struct clk_ops pmc_clk_gate_ops = {
>> + .is_enabled = pmc_clk_is_enabled,
>> + .enable = pmc_clk_enable,
>> + .disable = pmc_clk_disable,
>> +};
>
> What's the benefit of separating GATE from the MUX?
>
> I think it could be a single clock.
According to TRM:
1. GATE and MUX are separate entities.
2. GATE is the parent of MUX (see PMC's CLK_OUT paths diagram in TRM).
3. PMC doesn't gate EXTPERIPH clock but could "force-enable" it, correct?
[snip]
