07.12.2019 18:47, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> 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?
4. clk_m_div2/4 are internal PMC OSC dividers and thus these clocks
should belong to PMC.
