On 02/25/15 06:53, Shawn Guo wrote:
> Since commit 035a61c314eb ("clk: Make clk API return per-user struct clk
> instances"), clk API users can no longer check if two struct clk
> pointers are pointing to the same hardware clock, i.e. struct clk_hw, by
> simply comparing two pointers. That's because with the per-user clk
> change, a brand new struct clk is created whenever clients try to look
> up the clock by calling clk_get() or sister functions like clk_get_sys()
> and of_clk_get(). This changes the original behavior where the struct
> clk is only created for once when clock driver registers the clock to
> CCF in the first place. The net change here is before commit
> 035a61c314eb the struct clk pointer is unique for given hardware
> clock, while after the commit the pointers returned by clk lookup calls
> become different for the same hardware clock.
>
> That said, the struct clk pointer comparing in the code doesn't work any
> more. Call helper function clk_is_match() instead to fix the problem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> sound/soc/fsl/fsl_spdif.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_spdif.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_spdif.c
> index 75870c0ea2c9..91eb3aef7f02 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_spdif.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_spdif.c
> @@ -1049,7 +1049,7 @@ static u32 fsl_spdif_txclk_caldiv(struct fsl_spdif_priv *spdif_priv,
> enum spdif_txrate index, bool round)
> {
> const u32 rate[] = { 32000, 44100, 48000, 96000, 192000 };
> - bool is_sysclk = clk == spdif_priv->sysclk;
> + bool is_sysclk = clk_is_match(clk, spdif_priv->sysclk);
> u64 rate_ideal, rate_actual, sub;
> u32 sysclk_dfmin, sysclk_dfmax;
> u32 txclk_df, sysclk_df, arate;
> @@ -1143,7 +1143,7 @@ static int fsl_spdif_probe_txclk(struct fsl_spdif_priv *spdif_priv,
> spdif_priv->txclk_src[index], rate[index]);
> dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "use txclk df %d for %dHz sample rate\n",
> spdif_priv->txclk_df[index], rate[index]);
> - if (spdif_priv->txclk[index] == spdif_priv->sysclk)
> + if (clk_is_match(spdif_priv->txclk[index], spdif_priv->sysclk))
> dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "use sysclk df %d for %dHz sample rate\n",
> spdif_priv->sysclk_df[index], rate[index]);
> dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "the best rate for %dHz sample rate is %dHz\n",
Couldn't this be fixed like this?
----8<----
diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_spdif.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_spdif.c
index af0429421fc8..1878dd62a247 100644
--- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_spdif.c
+++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_spdif.c
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
#include <linux/of_device.h>
#include <linux/of_irq.h>
#include <linux/regmap.h>
+#include <linux/stringify.h>
#include <sound/asoundef.h>
#include <sound/dmaengine_pcm.h>
@@ -46,6 +47,8 @@ static u8 srpc_dpll_locked[] = { 0x0, 0x1, 0x2, 0x3, 0x4, 0xa, 0xb };
#define DEFAULT_RXCLK_SRC 1
+#define SYSCLK_NUM 5
+
/*
* SPDIF control structure
* Defines channel status, subcode and Q sub
@@ -1051,10 +1054,10 @@ static const struct regmap_config fsl_spdif_regmap_config = {
static u32 fsl_spdif_txclk_caldiv(struct fsl_spdif_priv *spdif_priv,
struct clk *clk, u64 savesub,
- enum spdif_txrate index, bool round)
+ enum spdif_txrate index, bool round,
+ bool is_sysclk)
{
const u32 rate[] = { 32000, 44100, 48000, 96000, 192000 };
- bool is_sysclk = clk == spdif_priv->sysclk;
u64 rate_ideal, rate_actual, sub;
u32 sysclk_dfmin, sysclk_dfmax;
u32 txclk_df, sysclk_df, arate;
@@ -1131,7 +1134,8 @@ static int fsl_spdif_probe_txclk(struct fsl_spdif_priv *spdif_priv,
continue;
ret = fsl_spdif_txclk_caldiv(spdif_priv, clk, savesub, index,
- i == STC_TXCLK_SPDIF_ROOT);
+ i == STC_TXCLK_SPDIF_ROOT,
+ i == SYSCLK_NUM);
if (savesub == ret)
continue;
@@ -1210,7 +1214,8 @@ static int fsl_spdif_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
}
/* Get system clock for rx clock rate calculation */
- spdif_priv->sysclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "rxtx5");
+ spdif_priv->sysclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev,
+ "rxtx" __stringify(SYSCLK_NUM));
if (IS_ERR(spdif_priv->sysclk)) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no sys clock (rxtx5) in devicetree\n");
return PTR_ERR(spdif_priv->sysclk);
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
