On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 16:11 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > I like (1), it seems more straightforward. > What is the advantage of (2)? > Actually no, it can't even guarantee HCLK parent clock reference count neither. We will resend mmc device tree patch base on this solution. 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