On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 09:01:57AM +0100, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> Exynos7 SoC has now separate gate control for 125MHz pipe3 phy
> clock, as well as 60MHz utmi phy clock.
> So get the same and control in the phy-exynos5-usbdrd driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt | 4 ++++
> drivers/phy/phy-exynos5-usbdrd.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt
> index 7a6feea..b64d616 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt
> @@ -135,6 +135,10 @@ Required properties:
> PHY operations, associated by phy name. It is used to
> determine bit values for clock settings register.
> For Exynos5420 this is given as 'sclk_usbphy30' in CMU.
> + - optional clocks: Next gen Exynos SoCs have following additional
It's not going to be 'Next gen' for long...
> + gate clocks available:
> + - phy_pipe: for PIPE3 phy
> + - phy_utmi: for UTMI+ phy
> - samsung,pmu-syscon: phandle for PMU system controller interface, used to
> control pmu registers for power isolation.
> - #phy-cells : from the generic PHY bindings, must be 1;
> diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-exynos5-usbdrd.c b/drivers/phy/phy-exynos5-usbdrd.c
> index b05302b..685c108 100644
> --- a/drivers/phy/phy-exynos5-usbdrd.c
> +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-exynos5-usbdrd.c
> @@ -148,6 +148,8 @@ struct exynos5_usbdrd_phy_drvdata {
> * @dev: pointer to device instance of this platform device
> * @reg_phy: usb phy controller register memory base
> * @clk: phy clock for register access
> + * @pipeclk: clock for pipe3 phy
> + * @utmiclk: clock for utmi+ phy
> * @drv_data: pointer to SoC level driver data structure
> * @phys[]: array for 'EXYNOS5_DRDPHYS_NUM' number of PHY
> * instances each with its 'phy' and 'phy_cfg'.
> @@ -161,6 +163,8 @@ struct exynos5_usbdrd_phy {
> struct device *dev;
> void __iomem *reg_phy;
> struct clk *clk;
> + struct clk *pipeclk;
> + struct clk *utmiclk;
> const struct exynos5_usbdrd_phy_drvdata *drv_data;
> struct phy_usb_instance {
> struct phy *phy;
> @@ -446,6 +450,10 @@ static int exynos5_usbdrd_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
>
> dev_dbg(phy_drd->dev, "Request to power_on usbdrd_phy phy\n");
>
> + if (!IS_ERR(phy_drd->utmiclk))
> + clk_prepare_enable(phy_drd->utmiclk);
> + if (!IS_ERR(phy_drd->pipeclk))
> + clk_prepare_enable(phy_drd->pipeclk);
> clk_prepare_enable(phy_drd->ref_clk);
>
> /* Enable VBUS supply */
> @@ -464,6 +472,10 @@ static int exynos5_usbdrd_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
>
> fail_vbus:
> clk_disable_unprepare(phy_drd->ref_clk);
> + if (!IS_ERR(phy_drd->pipeclk))
> + clk_disable_unprepare(phy_drd->pipeclk);
> + if (!IS_ERR(phy_drd->utmiclk))
> + clk_disable_unprepare(phy_drd->utmiclk);
>
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -483,6 +495,10 @@ static int exynos5_usbdrd_phy_power_off(struct phy *phy)
> regulator_disable(phy_drd->vbus);
>
> clk_disable_unprepare(phy_drd->ref_clk);
> + if (!IS_ERR(phy_drd->pipeclk))
> + clk_disable_unprepare(phy_drd->pipeclk);
> + if (!IS_ERR(phy_drd->utmiclk))
> + clk_disable_unprepare(phy_drd->utmiclk);
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -581,6 +597,14 @@ static int exynos5_usbdrd_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return PTR_ERR(phy_drd->clk);
> }
>
> + phy_drd->pipeclk = devm_clk_get(dev, "phy_pipe");
> + if (IS_ERR(phy_drd->pipeclk))
> + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to get pipe3 phy operational clock\n");
> +
> + phy_drd->utmiclk = devm_clk_get(dev, "phy_utmi");
> + if (IS_ERR(phy_drd->utmiclk))
> + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to get utmi phy operational clock\n");
> +
Pointless warnings for !Exynos7?
Would it not be better to set these to NULL and not litter the code with
IS_ERR checks?
Mark.
--
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
