On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 22:54 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:58 AM, James Liao <jamesjj.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +static struct mtk_gate_regs cg_regs_4_8_0 = {
>
> These should all be:
>
> static const struct mtk_gate_regs ...
OK, I'll fix it.
> > + .set_ofs = 0x0004,
> > + .clr_ofs = 0x0008,
> > + .sta_ofs = 0x0000,
> > +};
> > +
> > +#define GATE_IMG(_id, _name, _parent, _shift) { \
> > + .id = _id, \
> > + .name = _name, \
> > + .parent_name = _parent, \
> > + .regs = &cg_regs_4_8_0, \
> > + .shift = _shift, \
> > + .ops = &mtk_clk_gate_ops_setclr, \
> > + }
> > +
> > +static struct mtk_gate img_clks[] __initdata = {
>
> These should all be:
>
> static const ... __initconst = {
OK, I'll fix it.
> > +
> > +static void __init mtk_imgsys_init(struct device_node *node)
> > +{
> > + struct clk_onecell_data *clk_data;
> > + void __iomem *base;
>
> I don't think you need base for any of these.
> mtk_clk_register_gates() will use syscon_node_to_regmap() to lookup
> the regmap by itself.
OK, I'll remove it.
> > + int r;
> > +
> > + base = of_iomap(node, 0);
> > + if (!base) {
> > + pr_err("%s(): ioremap failed\n", __func__);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + clk_data = mtk_alloc_clk_data(CLK_IMG_NR_CLK);
>
> Unrelated to this patch, but:
> I think each clock node should statically declare its
> clk_onecell_data, and pass it to mtk_alloc_clk_data().
> mtk_alloc_clk_data() should then just allocate and initialize the clks array.
Is there any different from allocating clk_onecell_data and clks arary
dynamically?
> > /* APMIXED_SYS */
> >
> > -#define CLK_APMIXED_ARMCA15PLL 1
> > -#define CLK_APMIXED_ARMCA7PLL 2
> > +#define CLK_APMIXED_ARMCA15PLL 1
> > +#define CLK_APMIXED_ARMCA7PLL 2
> > #define CLK_APMIXED_MAINPLL 3
> > #define CLK_APMIXED_UNIVPLL 4
> > #define CLK_APMIXED_MMPLL 5
> > @@ -232,4 +232,91 @@
> > #define CLK_PERI_UART3_SEL 39
> > #define CLK_PERI_NR_CLK 40
>
> Why do we count up from 1 instead of 0?
> This means that for each clock-controller:
> clk_onecell_data->clk[0] == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT)
It's a legacy implementation. I think it doesn't matter for function or
size in this implementation. We may change clock index to start from 0
in next SoC clock implementation.
Best regards,
James
--
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
