Hi all,
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 13:44 +0800, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 10:37:21AM +0800, Eddie Huang wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 23:10 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 10:15:29PM +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 01:29:11PM +0800, Eddie Huang wrote:
> > > >> >> Add clk_null, which represents clocks that can not / need not
> > > >> >> controlled by software.
> > > >> >> There are many clocks' parent set to clk_null.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Signed-off-by: James Liao <jamesjj.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> >> ---
> > > >> >> Base on 4.1-rc1
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Change-Id: I4db9b40d07e28f54f7bae9b676316cbd6a962124
> > > >> >> ---
> > > >> >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi | 6 ++++++
> > > >> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi
> > > >> >> index 924fdb6..4798f44 100644
> > > >> >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi
> > > >> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi
> > > >> >> @@ -81,6 +81,12 @@
> > > >> >> cpu_on = <0x84000003>;
> > > >> >> };
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> + clk_null: clk_null {
> > > >> >> + compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > >> >> + clock-frequency = <0>;
> > > >> >> + #clock-cells = <0>;
> > > >> >> + };
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The discussion around this patch shows that we don't want to have this
> > > >> > clock in the device tree as it is not a hardware description.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Ok, fine. Eddie, you told us that the rate of the current clk_null children
> > > >> > is not interesting. What's the motivation to send this patch anyway
> > > >> > then? Why can't you keep its children on the orphan list where they are
> > > >> > already now?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Another possibility would be to instantiate the clk_null clock from C
> > > >> > code rather than from the device tree. This way we wouldn't put any
> > > >> > wrong descriptions into the device tree and still can implement the
> > > >> > support for the real parent clocks when we actually need them.
> > > >>
> > > >> Some device nodes, like mmc, use a clk_null phandle as one of their clocks:
> > > >>
> > > >> mmc1: mmc@11240000 {
> > > >> compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-mmc",
> > > >> "mediatek,mt8135-mmc";
> > > >> reg = <0 0x11240000 0 0x1000>;
> > > >> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 72 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
> > > >> clocks = <&pericfg CLK_PERI_MSDC30_1>,
> > > >> <&clk_null>;
> > > >> clock-names = "source", "hclk";
> > > >> status = "disabled";
> > > >> };
> > > >
> > > > This is another case than the one we discussed about. In the case above
> > > > I motivated using a dummy clock since the clock exists in the system,
> > > > but is not software controllable. To abstract this from the driver
> > > > (which needs this clock since it exists) we here have the dummy clock.
> > > > However, of course I can't prove the clock is indeed not software
> > > > controllable; that's only the information I have.
> > >
> > > I was trying to answer your question "What's the motivation to send
> > > this patch anyway?".
> > > The motivation is to send follow on patches that use the clk_null
> > > phandle. We need to provide some clock as the mmc1's hclk. I do not
> > > understand why this has to be "clk_null", though. It seems like this
> > > should be a real clock coming from one of the real clock_controller
> > > nodes. After all, the mmc driver is going to be enabling/disabling
> > > this clock for power savings at runtime. What does that even mean for
> > > clk_null ?
> >
> > The original purpose of this patch is to provide a common dummy clock
> > for both software don't care clock and clock that is not software
> > controllable.I got comments that device tree should describe hardware
> > and should put exact clock in device tree. I think this is true. So we
> > will remove this clock_null patch, and:
> >
> > 1. For Mediatek SoC CCF driver, James will clarify clock usage further.
> > Actually, we still think it's not necessary to describe whole tree that
> > software don't care, James will deal this in clock driver.
>
> I think that aswell since the device tree is not affected in this case.
> Should we realize later that we indeed need the missing clocks we can
> still implement them without modifying the device tree.
>
> >
> > 2. For other module that use SW not controllable clock (mmc case
> > mentioned by Dan), because this is a real clock, we will put a dummy
> > clock in device tree, like
> >
> > clk_mmchclk: dummyhclk {
> > compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > clock-frequency = <0>;
> > #clock-cells = <0>;
> > };
> >
> > How about this modification ?
>
> I wouldn't name it 'dummy', this will again raise some eyebrows.
>
I got mmc hclk from our designer. HCLK is from AXI Bus directly (sorry,
I gave wrong information to Dan and Sascha yesterday). Because there is
no any mux or gate register to control this HCLK, so current
clk-mt8173.c didn't model it. Since I know where this clock comes from,
I will abandon this stupid dummy clock device tree patch. But there are
two alternative ways:
1. In MMC device tree, use parent clock, like
<&topckgen CLK_TOP_AXI_SEL>
2. In clk-mt8173.c, add fix factor clock, like apll case
FACTOR(CLK_TOP_APLL1, "apll1_ck", "apll1", 1, 1),
Either way works, but have different meaning. Any suggestion to handle
thing like this.
Thanks
Eddie
--
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
