On 04/17/2015 05:00 AM, Michael Welling wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:23:50AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
On 17.04.2015 00:09, Michael Welling wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:37:19PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
On 16.04.2015 18:17, Michael Welling wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 07:32:32AM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote:
On 04/15/2015 11:51 PM, Michael Welling wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:45:53PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Michael Welling <mwelling@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
There is still an issue with the si5351.
I had to comment out the clk_put here for the frequency to show up:
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/clk/clk-si5351.c#L1133
Ideas?
What is the most recent upstream commit that you are based on?
I am working from 4.0.0-rc7.
7b43b47373d40d557cd7e1a84a0bd8ebc4d745ab
Hmm, I wonder why si5351 calls clk_put immediately after of_clk_get
in the first place, as far as I understand this destroys the clock
handle, which is still being used later in the code.
Not sure how this ever worked. This has been in the code since the
initial commit.
The reason it worked before may be related with recent rework of
clk_put() itself and clk cookies instead of pointers. I lost track on
the recent clk subsystem changes here, sorry.
However, droping the clk immediately surely isn't right.
The thing is, we can remove the clk_put() just because there is no
_remove() for that driver. I remember that back in the days the driver
was mainlined, clk removal wasn't too easy.
FWIW, as soon as _remove() support will be added by someone, we'll have
to rethink passing struct clk* by platform_data or at least
double-check if we ever used [of_]clk_get() to obtain it.
Mind to send a patch removing the clk_put() on !IS_ERR and add a proper
error path instead? While of_clk_get() is the only calls that need
cleanup on error in si5351_dt_parse() we should probably move that
calls to the end of this function. Otherwise we'd also have to cleanup
on every of_parse_foo() failure.
What would be the proper error path?
What cleanup is required?
A proper error path would be to release any claimed resource
on any error. If you look at the code, the only resources that
need to be released are the two clocks in question.
So for every error return in the probe function and in the of si5351_dt_parse
it needs to clk_put first right?
See attached patch to see if we are on the same page.
It should be noted that there are more deep rooted issues with the driver
that I have noticed. For one the driver behaves differently if the debugging
is on and when it is off.
I guess you mean #define DEBUG in the driver?
Yes.
Here is what the kernel reports with debugging off:
Do you have any measurement equipment to check what is actually set?
Yes, I have an oscilloscope here at my desk.
The reported numbers do not always correspond to the actual output in some
cases.
The ms2 output has appeared to stop working all together sometime whilest
testing. I may have to solder a new chip on there.
Could misconfiguration damage the chip?
root@som3517-som200:~# cat /sys/kernel/debug/clk/clk_summary
clock enable_cnt prepare_cnt rate accuracy phase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ref27 0 0 27000000 0 0
xtal 0 0 27000000 0 0
pllb 0 0 599999994 0 0
ms0 0 0 12499999 0 0
clk0 0 0 12499999 0 0
plla 0 0 599999994 0 0
ms2 0 0 8219178 0 0
clk2 0 0 8219178 0 0
ms1 0 0 94117646 0 0
clk1 0 0 94117646 0 0
Here is what the kernel reports with debugging on:
clock enable_cnt prepare_cnt rate accuracy phase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ref27 0 0 27000000 0 0
xtal 0 0 27000000 0 0
pllb 0 0 884736000 0 0
ms0 0 0 18432000 0 0
clk0 0 0 18432000 0 0
Is this what you expect for clk0?
Yes.
plla 0 0 897023997 0 0
ms2 0 0 12287999 0 0
clk2 0 0 12287999 0 0
ditto for clk2?
Yes.
ms1 0 0 140709646 0 0
clk1 0 0 140709646 0 0
This is wrong, I agree. Looks like round_rate()/recalc_rate() of msynth
or clkout is broken with respect to non-pll-master clocks.
I had a quick look at drivers/clk.c too, there has been a lot of churn
in clk API since I last booted my device using si5351.
Is there any way to try out a less recent kernel, let's say two or
three releases before 4.0?
Could you provide a specific version that you think has the best chances of
working?
We should just confirm that there has been an issue with it before
already.
I have no clue about the debug on/off issue at the moment.
Note this is with the following devicetree entry:
si5351: clock-generator {
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
#clock-cells = <1>;
compatible = "silabs,si5351a-msop";
reg = <0x60>;
status = "okay";
/* connect xtal input to 27MHz reference */
clocks = <&ref27>;
/* connect xtal input as source of pll0 and pll1 */
silabs,pll-source = <0 0>, <1 0>;
clkout0: clkout0 {
reg = <0>;
silabs,drive-strength = <8>;
silabs,multisynth-source = <1>;
silabs,clock-source = <0>;
silabs,pll-master;
clock-frequency = <18432000>;
};
clkout1: clkout1 {
reg = <1>;
silabs,drive-strength = <8>;
silabs,multisynth-source = <0>;
silabs,clock-source = <0>;
clock-frequency = <8000000>;
};
clkout2: clkout2 {
reg = <2>;
silabs,drive-strength = <8>;
silabs,multisynth-source = <0>;
silabs,clock-source = <0>;
silabs,pll-master;
clock-frequency = <12288000>;
};
};
I am losing hope that this driver is stable enough to even use in production.
Who said it is stable for production use? The driver is written from
scratch based on _very_ limited information of the datasheet an appnote.
Also, I only have a single setup with si5351, that is no way enough to
test every combination.
Well it is not in staging and I am sure it took much work to get it working
for you.
non-staging doesn't mean code is absolutely bug free. Linux kernel is
still just software, and as we know, every piece of software has bugs
(except maybe the simplest hello-world app.)
I never heard serious complaints before, so either you help improving
this driver or better ask SiLabs for a table-based driver for your
specific setup.
I have routines to program the chip from U-Boot and Linux userspace using
the table method. I was hoping that a mainline driver could replace these
hackish utilities.
You can still replace your hack solution.
The beauty of linux comes in that if you find a bug someplace, you can
just fix it, post a patch upstream, and get it fixed for good. :)
-Tero
--
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
