Hi Jagan,
Am Montag, 29. Juni 2020, 21:11:03 CEST schrieb Jagan Teki:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM Mylène Josserand
> <mylene.josserand@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The revision rk3288w has a different clock tree about "hclk_vio"
> > clock, according to the BSP kernel code.
> >
> > This patch handles this difference by detecting which device-tree
> > we are using. If it is a "rockchip,rk3288-cru", let's register
> > the clock tree as it was before. If the device-tree node is
> > "rockchip,rk3288w-cru", we will apply the difference with this
> > version of this SoC.
> >
> > Noticed that this new device-tree compatible must be handled in
> > bootloader such as u-boot.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mylène Josserand <mylene.josserand@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3288.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3288.c b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3288.c
> > index cc2a177bbdbf..204976e2d0cb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3288.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3288.c
> > @@ -425,8 +425,6 @@ static struct rockchip_clk_branch rk3288_clk_branches[] __initdata = {
> > COMPOSITE(0, "aclk_vio0", mux_pll_src_cpll_gpll_usb480m_p, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
> > RK3288_CLKSEL_CON(31), 6, 2, MFLAGS, 0, 5, DFLAGS,
> > RK3288_CLKGATE_CON(3), 0, GFLAGS),
> > - DIV(0, "hclk_vio", "aclk_vio0", 0,
> > - RK3288_CLKSEL_CON(28), 8, 5, DFLAGS),
> > COMPOSITE(0, "aclk_vio1", mux_pll_src_cpll_gpll_usb480m_p, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
> > RK3288_CLKSEL_CON(31), 14, 2, MFLAGS, 8, 5, DFLAGS,
> > RK3288_CLKGATE_CON(3), 2, GFLAGS),
> > @@ -819,6 +817,16 @@ static struct rockchip_clk_branch rk3288_clk_branches[] __initdata = {
> > INVERTER(0, "pclk_isp", "pclk_isp_in", RK3288_CLKSEL_CON(29), 3, IFLAGS),
> > };
> >
> > +static struct rockchip_clk_branch rk3288w_hclkvio_branch[] __initdata = {
> > + DIV(0, "hclk_vio", "aclk_vio1", 0,
> > + RK3288_CLKSEL_CON(28), 8, 5, DFLAGS),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct rockchip_clk_branch rk3288_hclkvio_branch[] __initdata = {
> > + DIV(0, "hclk_vio", "aclk_vio0", 0,
> > + RK3288_CLKSEL_CON(28), 8, 5, DFLAGS),
> > +};
> > +
> > static const char *const rk3288_critical_clocks[] __initconst = {
> > "aclk_cpu",
> > "aclk_peri",
> > @@ -936,6 +944,14 @@ static void __init rk3288_clk_init(struct device_node *np)
> > RK3288_GRF_SOC_STATUS1);
> > rockchip_clk_register_branches(ctx, rk3288_clk_branches,
> > ARRAY_SIZE(rk3288_clk_branches));
> > +
> > + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "rockchip,rk3288w-cru"))
> > + rockchip_clk_register_branches(ctx, rk3288w_hclkvio_branch,
> > + ARRAY_SIZE(rk3288w_hclkvio_branch));
> > + else
> > + rockchip_clk_register_branches(ctx, rk3288_hclkvio_branch,
> > + ARRAY_SIZE(rk3288_hclkvio_branch));
> > +
>
> Sorry for the late query on this. I am a bit unclear about this
> compatible change, does Linux expect to replace rockchip,rk3288-cru
> with rockchip,rk3288w-cru in bootloader if the chip is RK3288w? or
> append the existing cru compatible node with rockchip,rk3288w-cru?
> because replace new cru node make clock never probe since the
> CLK_OF_DECLARE checking rockchip,rk3288-cru
I guess right now we'd expect "rockchip,rk3288w-cru", "rockchip,rk3288-cru",
Thinking again about this, I'm wondering if we should switch to having
only one per variant ... like on the two rk3188 variants,
so declaring separate rk3288-cru and rk3288w-cru of-clks with shared
common code.
