Hello Tomasz, On 20 June 2014 06:00, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 20.06.2014 02:28, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >> On 06/20/2014 09:24 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> On 20.06.2014 02:22, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >>>> Hi Tomasz, >>>> >>>> On 06/18/2014 04:58 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>>> Hi Chanwoo, >>>>> >>>>> On 18.06.2014 04:20, Chanwoo Choi 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_adc' clock as following: >>>>>> - 'sclk_adc' clock: special clock for ADC which provide clock to internal ADC >>>>>> >>>>>> Exynos 4210/4212/4412 and Exynos5250/5420 has not included 'sclk_adc' clock >>>>>> in FSYS_BLK. But, Exynos3250 based on Cortex-A7 has only included 'sclk_adc' >>>>>> clock in FSYS_BLK. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c >>>>>> index c30def6..6b026ac 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c >>>>>> @@ -41,7 +41,8 @@ >>>>>> >>>>>> enum adc_version { >>>>>> ADC_V1, >>>>>> - ADC_V2 >>>>>> + ADC_V2, >>>>>> + ADC_V2_EXYNOS3250, >>>>>> }; >>>>>> >>>>>> /* EXYNOS4412/5250 ADC_V1 registers definitions */ >>>>>> @@ -85,9 +86,11 @@ enum adc_version { >>>>>> #define EXYNOS_ADC_TIMEOUT (msecs_to_jiffies(100)) >>>>>> >>>>>> struct exynos_adc { >>>>>> + struct device *dev; >>>>>> void __iomem *regs; >>>>>> void __iomem *enable_reg; >>>>>> struct clk *clk; >>>>>> + struct clk *sclk; >>>>>> unsigned int irq; >>>>>> struct regulator *vdd; >>>>>> struct exynos_adc_ops *ops; >>>>>> @@ -96,6 +99,7 @@ struct exynos_adc { >>>>>> >>>>>> u32 value; >>>>>> unsigned int version; >>>>>> + bool needs_sclk; >>>>> >>>>> This should be rather a part of the variant struct. See my comments to >>>>> patch 1/4. >>>> >>>> OK, I'll include 'needs_sclk' in "variant" structure. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> }; >>>>>> >>>>>> struct exynos_adc_ops { >>>>>> @@ -103,11 +107,21 @@ struct exynos_adc_ops { >>>>>> void (*clear_irq)(struct exynos_adc *info); >>>>>> void (*start_conv)(struct exynos_adc *info, unsigned long addr); >>>>>> void (*stop_conv)(struct exynos_adc *info); >>>>>> + void (*disable_clk)(struct exynos_adc *info); >>>>>> + int (*enable_clk)(struct exynos_adc *info); >>>>>> }; >>>>>> >>>>>> 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-v1", >>>>>> + .data = (void *)ADC_V1, >>>>>> + }, { >>>>>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v2", >>>>>> + .data = (void *)ADC_V2, >>>>>> + }, { >>>>>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos3250-adc-v2", >>>>>> + .data = (void *)ADC_V2_EXYNOS3250, >>>>>> + }, >>>>>> {}, >>>>>> }; >>>>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, exynos_adc_match); >>>>>> @@ -156,11 +170,42 @@ static void exynos_adc_v1_stop_conv(struct exynos_adc *info) >>>>>> writel(con, ADC_V1_CON(info->regs)); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> +static void exynos_adc_disable_clk(struct exynos_adc *info) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + if (info->needs_sclk) >>>>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->sclk); >>>>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->clk); >>>>>> +} >>>>>> + >>>>>> +static int exynos_adc_enable_clk(struct exynos_adc *info) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + int ret; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(info->clk); >>>>>> + if (ret) { >>>>>> + dev_err(info->dev, "failed enabling adc clock: %d\n", ret); >>>>>> + return ret; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (info->needs_sclk) { >>>>>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(info->sclk); >>>>>> + if (ret) { >>>>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->clk); >>>>>> + dev_err(info->dev, >>>>>> + "failed enabling sclk_tsadc clock: %d\n", ret); >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + >>>>>> + return 0; >>>>>> +} >>>>>> + >>>>>> static struct exynos_adc_ops exynos_adc_v1_ops = { >>>>>> .init_hw = exynos_adc_v1_init_hw, >>>>>> .clear_irq = exynos_adc_v1_clear_irq, >>>>>> .start_conv = exynos_adc_v1_start_conv, >>>>>> .stop_conv = exynos_adc_v1_stop_conv, >>>>>> + .disable_clk = exynos_adc_disable_clk, >>>>>> + .enable_clk = exynos_adc_enable_clk, >>>>>> }; >>>>>> >>>>>> static void exynos_adc_v2_init_hw(struct exynos_adc *info) >>>>>> @@ -210,6 +255,8 @@ static struct exynos_adc_ops exynos_adc_v2_ops = { >>>>>> .start_conv = exynos_adc_v2_start_conv, >>>>>> .clear_irq = exynos_adc_v2_clear_irq, >>>>>> .stop_conv = exynos_adc_v2_stop_conv, >>>>>> + .disable_clk = exynos_adc_disable_clk, >>>>>> + .enable_clk = exynos_adc_enable_clk, >>>>> >>>>> Based on the fact that all variants use the same function, I don't think >>>>> there is a reason to add .{disable,enable}_clk in the ops struct. If >>>>> they diverge in future, they could be added later, but right now it >>>>> doesn't have any value. >>>> >>>> OK, I'll not add .{disable,enable}_clk and then just use following functions for clock control: >>>> - exynos_adc_prepare_clk() : once execute this function in _probe() >>>> - exynos_adc_unprepare_clk() : once execute this function in _remove() >>>> - exynos_adc_enable_clk() >>>> - exynos_adc_disable_clk() >>> >>> Is there any need to separate prepare/unprepare from enable/disable? >>> Otherwise sounds good, thanks. >> >> Naveen Krishna Chatradhi want to execute once prepare/unpreare in probe/remove function. >> >> - Following comment of Naveen Krishna Chatradhi >>> +static void exynos_adc_disable_clk(struct exynos_adc *info) >>> +{ >>> + if (info->needs_sclk) >>> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->sclk); >>> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->clk); >> >> (Just a nit pick) As a part of cleanup can we also change to use >> clk_disable() here and clk_unprepare() once and for all at the end. >> >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int exynos_adc_enable_clk(struct exynos_adc *info) >>> +{ >>> + int ret; >>> + >>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(info->clk); >>> + if (ret) { >>> + dev_err(info->dev, "failed enabling adc clock: %d\n", ret); >>> + return ret; >>> + } >>> + >>> + if (info->needs_sclk) { >>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(info->sclk); >> Can we use clk_enable() here and clk_prepare() some where during the probe. > > I still don't see any reason to do it. Naveen, what's the motivation for > this change? For me, it only complicates the code, without any added value. clk_prepare() and clk_unprepare() maintains the clk prepare count. Which we may not need for every transaction. We just need to clk_enable() and clk_disable() the clock carefully. Thus, using clk_prepare() and clk_unprepare() once should reduce a set of instructions for every transaction. Right ? > > Best regards, > Tomasz > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Shine bright, (: Nav :) -- 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