On 01/08/14 17:51, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Boyd (2013-12-23 17:12:26)
>> Add support to the clock core so that drivers can pass in a
>> regmap. If no regmap is specified try to query the device that's
>> registering the clock for its regmap. This should allow drivers
>> to use the core regmap helpers. This is based on a similar design
>> in the regulator framework.
>>
>> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/clk/clk.c | 8 ++++++++
>> include/linux/clk-provider.h | 7 +++++++
>> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> index 9ad7b71..5e71f5c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>> #include <linux/device.h>
>> #include <linux/init.h>
>> #include <linux/sched.h>
>> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
>>
>> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(enable_lock);
>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(prepare_lock);
>> @@ -1834,6 +1835,13 @@ static int _clk_register(struct device *dev, struct clk_hw *hw, struct clk *clk)
>> clk->num_parents = hw->init->num_parents;
>> hw->clk = clk;
>>
>> + if (hw->init->regmap)
>> + hw->regmap = hw->init->regmap;
> Hi Stephen,
>
> The whole series looks good to me except for the placement of the regmap
> details inside struct clk_hw. That structure exists only to hide struct
> clk from the hardware-specific clock structure and I'd not like to set
> the precedent of shoving per-clock data into it.
>
> As an alternative, how about finding a way to put these per-clock regmap
> details into the hardware-specific clock structure? I understand that
> you want to make these ops available to others, which is why they are in
> the public struct clk_hw. I'm just wondering if that is the right way to
> do it...
The regulator framework has gone this way. It seemed like a similar
approach in the clock framework would be the right way to go too.
>
> Patch #3 illustrates the sort of struct-member-creep that worries me.
> What is to stop someone from putting "unsigned int divider_reg" or
> "unsigned int mux_reg", and then the thing just keeps growing.
>
I see two ways forward if you don't want these members in struct clk_hw.
1) Inheritance: struct clk_regmap wrapper struct and
clk_register_regmap() and devm_clk_register_regmap() and then another
wrapper struct around that.
example:
struct clk_regmap {
struct clk_hw hw;
struct regmap *regmap;
unsigned int enable_reg;
unsigned int enable_mask;
bool enable_is_inverted;
};
struct clk_branch {
u32 hwcg_reg;
u32 halt_reg;
u8 hwcg_bit;
u8 halt_bit;
u8 halt_check;
struct clk_regmap clkr;
};
static struct clk_branch gsbi1_uart_clk = {
.halt_reg = 0x2fcc,
.halt_bit = 10,
.clkr = {
.enable_reg = 0x29d4,
.enable_mask = BIT(9),
.hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
.name = "gsbi1_uart_clk",
.parent_names = (const char *[]){
"gsbi1_uart_src",
},
.num_parents = 1,
.ops = &clk_branch_ops,
.flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
},
},
};
2) Interfaces: Add a void *data in struct clk_hw that can point to
whatever I want and still have the same clk_regmap_register() and
devm_clk_regmap_register()
Example:
struct clk_hw {
struct clk *clk;
const struct clk_init_data *init;
void *data;
};
struct clk_regmap {
struct regmap *regmap;
unsigned int enable_reg;
unsigned int enable_mask;
bool enable_is_inverted;
};
struct clk_branch {
u32 hwcg_reg;
u32 halt_reg;
u8 hwcg_bit;
u8 halt_bit;
u8 halt_check;
struct clk_hw;
};
static struct clk_branch gsbi1_uart_clk = {
.halt_reg = 0x2fcc,
.halt_bit = 10,
.hw = {
.data = &(struct clk_regmap){
.enable_reg = 0x29d4,
.enable_mask = BIT(9),
};
.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
.name = "gsbi1_uart_clk",
.parent_names = (const char *[]){
"gsbi1_uart_src",
},
.num_parents = 1,
.ops = &clk_branch_ops,
.flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
},
},
};
I guess option 2 is less likely given your comment about clk_hw being
nothing more than a traversal mechanism.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
