On 26/05/2023 12:33, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 25.05.2023 19:21, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:In lucid evo pll, the CAL_L field is part of L value register itself, and the l value configuration passed from clock controller driver includes CAL_L and L values as well. Hence remove explicit configuration of CAL_L for evo pll. Fixes: 260e36606a03 ("clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: add Lucid EVO PLL configuration interfaces") Signed-off-by: Taniya Das <quic_tdas@xxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx> ---Oh that isn't obvious at first sight, nice find! I'd suggest a different solution though: #define LUCID_EVO_PLL_L_LVAL GENMASK(.. #define LUCID_EVO_PLL_L_CAL_L GENMASK(.. lval = FIELD_PREP(LUCID_EVO_PLL_L_LVAL, config->l) | FIELD_PREP(LUCID_EVO_PLL_L_CAL_L, config->cal_l); This would make the separation between the two parts more explicit however config->l would then represent the L value and not the end value written to the L register
Yes. I think there should be separate config->l and config->cal_l values (and probably ringosc_cal_l, basing on the comment in the source).
Just a question: is camcc-sm8550 using the same PLL type or is it some kind of subtype of lucid_evo PLL?
-- With best wishes Dmitry
