On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 04:28:02PM -0800, Melody Olvera wrote:
> From: Taniya Das <quic_tdas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Add the RPMH clocks present in SM8750 SoC and fix the match table to
> sort it alphabetically.
>
> Reviewed-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Taniya Das <quic_tdas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> index eefc322ce367..a3b381e34e48 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> @@ -368,6 +368,10 @@ DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk2, _d, "rfclkd2", 1);
> DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk3, _d, "rfclkd3", 1);
> DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk4, _d, "rfclkd4", 1);
>
> +DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk3, _a2, "rfclka3", 2);
> +DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk4, _a2, "rfclka4", 2);
> +DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk5, _a2, "rfclka5", 2);
Are the two last clocks defined "for the future platforms"?
> +
> DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(clk1, _a1, "clka1", 1);
> DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(clk2, _a1, "clka2", 1);
> DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(clk3, _a1, "clka3", 1);
> @@ -807,6 +811,27 @@ static const struct clk_rpmh_desc clk_rpmh_x1e80100 = {
> .num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(x1e80100_rpmh_clocks),
> };
>
> +static struct clk_hw *sm8750_rpmh_clocks[] = {
> + [RPMH_CXO_CLK] = &clk_rpmh_bi_tcxo_div2.hw,
> + [RPMH_CXO_CLK_A] = &clk_rpmh_bi_tcxo_div2_ao.hw,
> + [RPMH_LN_BB_CLK1] = &clk_rpmh_clk6_a2.hw,
> + [RPMH_LN_BB_CLK1_A] = &clk_rpmh_clk6_a2_ao.hw,
> + [RPMH_LN_BB_CLK3] = &clk_rpmh_clk8_a2.hw,
> + [RPMH_LN_BB_CLK3_A] = &clk_rpmh_clk8_a2_ao.hw,
> + [RPMH_RF_CLK1] = &clk_rpmh_rf_clk1_a.hw,
> + [RPMH_RF_CLK1_A] = &clk_rpmh_rf_clk1_a_ao.hw,
> + [RPMH_RF_CLK2] = &clk_rpmh_rf_clk2_a.hw,
> + [RPMH_RF_CLK2_A] = &clk_rpmh_rf_clk2_a_ao.hw,
> + [RPMH_RF_CLK3] = &clk_rpmh_rf_clk3_a2.hw,
> + [RPMH_RF_CLK3_A] = &clk_rpmh_rf_clk3_a2_ao.hw,
> + [RPMH_IPA_CLK] = &clk_rpmh_ipa.hw,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct clk_rpmh_desc clk_rpmh_sm8750 = {
> + .clks = sm8750_rpmh_clocks,
> + .num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8750_rpmh_clocks),
> +};
> +
> static struct clk_hw *of_clk_rpmh_hw_get(struct of_phandle_args *clkspec,
> void *data)
> {
> @@ -894,6 +919,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id clk_rpmh_match_table[] = {
> { .compatible = "qcom,sa8775p-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sa8775p},
> { .compatible = "qcom,sar2130p-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sar2130p},
> { .compatible = "qcom,sc7180-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc7180},
> + { .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc7280},
> { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc8180x},
> { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc8280xp},
> { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sdm845},
> @@ -909,7 +935,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id clk_rpmh_match_table[] = {
> { .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sm8450},
> { .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sm8550},
> { .compatible = "qcom,sm8650-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sm8650},
> - { .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc7280},
Please don't mix fixes and actual code. I'd suggest splitting sc7280
move to the separate commit.
> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8750-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sm8750},
> { .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_x1e80100},
> { }
> };
> --
> 2.46.1
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
