Hello Stephen,
2015-05-16 3:30 GMT+08:00 Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 05/15, Bintian wrote:
>> On 2015/5/15 8:25, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> >On 05/05, Bintian Wang wrote:
>> >>diff --git a/drivers/clk/hisilicon/clkdivider-hi6220.c b/drivers/clk/hisilicon/clkdivider-hi6220.c
>> >>+
>> >>+/**
>> >>+ * struct hi6220_clk_divider - divider clock for hi6220
>> >>+ *
>> >>+ * @hw: handle between common and hardware-specific interfaces
>> >>+ * @reg: register containing divider
>> >>+ * @shift: shift to the divider bit field
>> >>+ * @width: width of the divider bit field
>> >>+ * @mask: mask for setting divider rate
>> >>+ * @table: the div table that the divider supports
>> >>+ * @lock: register lock
>> >>+ */
>> >>+struct hi6220_clk_divider {
>> >>+ struct clk_hw hw;
>> >>+ void __iomem *reg;
>> >>+ u8 shift;
>> >>+ u8 width;
>> >>+ u32 mask;
>> >>+ const struct clk_div_table *table;
>> >>+ spinlock_t *lock;
>> >>+};
>> >
>> >The clk-divider.c code has been made "reusable". Can you please
>> >try to use the functions that it now exposes instead of
>> >copy/pasting it and modifying it to suit your needs? A lot of
>> >this code looks the same.
>> In fact, I discussed this problem with Rob Herring and Mike Turquette
>> in the 96boards internal mail list before.
>>
>> The divider in hi6220 has a mask bit to guarantee writing the correct
>> bits in register when setting rate, but the index of this mask bit has
>> no rules to get (e.g. by left shift some fixed bits), so I add this
>> divider clock to handle it, we can regard hi6220_clk_divider as a
>> special case of generic divider clock.
>>
>> If I don't add this divider clock for hi6220 chip, then I should change
>> the core APIs "clk_register_divider" and "clk_register_divider_table",
>> and then many other drivers will be updated.
>> So I think just add this divider clock is a good solution now.
>
> I think you missed my point. I didn't suggest using
> clk_register_divider or clk_register_divider_table(). I'm
> suggesting to use
>
> unsigned long divider_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long parent_rate,
> unsigned int val, const struct clk_div_table *table,
> unsigned long flags);
> long divider_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> unsigned long *prate, const struct clk_div_table *table,
> u8 width, unsigned long flags);
> int divider_get_val(unsigned long rate, unsigned long parent_rate,
> const struct clk_div_table *table, u8 width,
> unsigned long flags);
Got it and I will prepare next version soon.
>
>> >>+ return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>> >>+ }
>> >>+
>> >>+ for (i = 0; i < max_div; i++) {
>> >>+ table[i].div = min_div + i;
>> >>+ table[i].val = table[i].div - 1;
>> >>+ }
>> >>+
>> >>+ init.name = name;
>> >>+ init.ops = &hi6220_clkdiv_ops;
>> >>+ init.flags = flags | CLK_IS_BASIC;
>> >
>> >It's basic?
>> I rechecked this flag, it's really useless to us, so I can remove it.
>> But can you tell me which case I should use it?
>
> I think the basic flag is there for drivers that want to know what type
> of clock they're dealing with when all they have is the struct clk_hw
> pointer. I like to discourage use of this flag in hopes of deleting
> it someday.
>
>>
>> How about just send this patch for review not the whole patch set in
>> next version?
>>
>
> Yes a single patch is fine. I take it you want the patch to go
> through arm-soc with some Ack from us?
Yes, exactly.
The dts file includes the clock head file, this patch goes through
arm-soc is a good choice.
Thanks,
Bintian
>
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
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
