Hi Angelo,
thank you for taking the time to review and for the helpful comments.
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 11:38:36AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 06/12/23 01:57, Daniel Golle ha scritto:
> > From: Sam Shih <sam.shih@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Introduce pcw_chg_shfit control to optionally use that instead of the
> > hardcoded PCW_CHG_MASK macro.
> > This will needed for clocks on the MT7988 SoC.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sam Shih <sam.shih@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Golle <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v3: use git --from ...
> > v2: no changes
> >
> > drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-pll.c | 5 ++++-
> > drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-pll.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-pll.c
> > index 513ab6b1b3229..9f08bc5d2a8a2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-pll.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-pll.c
> > @@ -114,7 +114,10 @@ static void mtk_pll_set_rate_regs(struct mtk_clk_pll *pll, u32 pcw,
> > pll->data->pcw_shift);
> > val |= pcw << pll->data->pcw_shift;
> > writel(val, pll->pcw_addr);
> > - chg = readl(pll->pcw_chg_addr) | PCW_CHG_MASK;
> > + if (pll->data->pcw_chg_shift)
> > + chg = readl(pll->pcw_chg_addr) | BIT(pll->data->pcw_chg_shift);
> > + else
> > + chg = readl(pll->pcw_chg_addr) | PCW_CHG_MASK;
> > writel(chg, pll->pcw_chg_addr);
> > if (pll->tuner_addr)
> > writel(val + 1, pll->tuner_addr);
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-pll.h b/drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-pll.h
> > index f17278ff15d78..d28d317e84377 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-pll.h
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-pll.h
> > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ struct mtk_pll_data {
> > u32 pcw_reg;
> > int pcw_shift;
> > u32 pcw_chg_reg;
> > + int pcw_chg_shift;
> > const struct mtk_pll_div_table *div_table;
> > const char *parent_name;
> > u32 en_reg;
>
> Hmm... no, this is not the best at all and can be improved.
>
> Okay, so, the situation here is that one or some PLL(s) on MT7988 have a different
> PCW_CHG_MASK as far as I understand.
Correct. *All* clocks of MT7988 have a different PCW_CHG_MASK, BIT(2)
instead of BIT(31).
>
> Situation here is:
> - Each PLL must be registered to clk-pll
> - Each driver declaring a PLL does exactly so
> - There's a function to register the PLL
>
> You definitely don't want to add a conditional in pll_set_rate(): even though
> this is technically not a performance path on the current SoCs (and will probably
> never be), it's simply useless to have this (very small) overhead there.
>
> The solution is to:
> - Change that pcw_chg_shift to an unsigned short int type (or u8, your call):
> you don't need 32 bits for this number, as the expected range of this member
> is [0-31], and this can be expressed in just 4 bits (u8 is the smallest though)
Ack will use u8 instead, despite the struct not being packed, so I
wonder if it actually makes a difference.
> - Add that to function mtk_clk_register_pll_ops()
> - Change mtk_pll_set_rate_regs() to always do
> chg = readl(pll->pcw_chg_addr) | BIT(pll->data->pcw_chg_shift);
As mtk_pll_data is a read-only member of the mtk_pll struct, we can't
set pcw_chg_shift to 31 in mtk_clk_register_pll_ops() in case it
is set to 0.
The only (much more intrusive change) would be to explicitely declare
.pcw_chg_shift = 31 in all current drivers setting .pcs_chg_reg != 0.
Should I do that instead?
