On 21-12-21, 16:26, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> The introduction of '9a61f813fcc8 ("clk: qcom: regmap-mux: fix parent
> clock lookup")' broke UFS support on SM8350.
>
> The cause for this is that the symbol clocks have a specified rate in
> the "freq-table-hz" table in the UFS node, which causes the UFS code to
> request a rate change, for which the "bi_tcxo" happens to provide the
> closest rate. Prior to the change in regmap-mux it was determined
> (incorrectly) that no change was needed and everything worked. Instead
> mimic the configuration found in other platforms, by omitting the rate
> for the symbol clocks as well to avoid the rate change.
>
> While at it also fill in the dummy symbol clocks that was dropped from
> the GCC driver as it was upstreamed.
>
> Fixes: 59c7cf814783 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sm8350: Add UFS nodes")
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350.dtsi | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350.dtsi
> index bc176c252bca..ceb064a83038 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350.dtsi
> @@ -38,6 +38,24 @@ sleep_clk: sleep-clk {
> clock-frequency = <32000>;
> #clock-cells = <0>;
> };
> +
> + ufs_phy_rx_symbol_0_clk: ufs-phy-rx-symbol-0 {
> + compatible = "fixed-clock";
> + clock-frequency = <1000>;
> + #clock-cells = <0>;
> + };
> +
> + ufs_phy_rx_symbol_1_clk: ufs-phy-rx-symbol-1 {
> + compatible = "fixed-clock";
> + clock-frequency = <1000>;
> + #clock-cells = <0>;
> + };
> +
> + ufs_phy_tx_symbol_0_clk: ufs-phy-tx-symbol-0 {
> + compatible = "fixed-clock";
> + clock-frequency = <1000>;
> + #clock-cells = <0>;
> + };
> };
>
> cpus {
> @@ -606,9 +624,9 @@ gcc: clock-controller@100000 {
> <0>,
> <0>,
> <0>,
> - <0>,
> - <0>,
> - <0>,
> + <&ufs_phy_rx_symbol_0_clk>,
> + <&ufs_phy_rx_symbol_1_clk>,
> + <&ufs_phy_tx_symbol_0_clk>,
> <0>,
> <0>;
> };
> @@ -2079,8 +2097,8 @@ ufs_mem_hc: ufshc@1d84000 {
> <75000000 300000000>,
> <0 0>,
> <0 0>,
> - <75000000 300000000>,
> - <75000000 300000000>;
> + <0 0>,
> + <0 0>;
should the rate be zero here?
--
~Vinod
