Hello Tomasz,
On 20 June 2014 06:00, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20.06.2014 02:28, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> On 06/20/2014 09:24 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> On 20.06.2014 02:22, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>> Hi Tomasz,
>>>>
>>>> On 06/18/2014 04:58 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>>> Hi Chanwoo,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18.06.2014 04:20, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>>> This patch control special clock for ADC in Exynos series's FSYS block.
>>>>>> If special clock of ADC is registerd on clock list of common clk framework,
>>>>>> Exynos ADC drvier have to control this clock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exynos3250/Exynos4/Exynos5 has 'adc' clock as following:
>>>>>> - 'adc' clock: bus clock for ADC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exynos3250 has additional 'sclk_adc' clock as following:
>>>>>> - 'sclk_adc' clock: special clock for ADC which provide clock to internal ADC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exynos 4210/4212/4412 and Exynos5250/5420 has not included 'sclk_adc' clock
>>>>>> in FSYS_BLK. But, Exynos3250 based on Cortex-A7 has only included 'sclk_adc'
>>>>>> clock in FSYS_BLK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
>>>>>> index c30def6..6b026ac 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
>>>>>> @@ -41,7 +41,8 @@
>>>>>>
>>>>>> enum adc_version {
>>>>>> ADC_V1,
>>>>>> - ADC_V2
>>>>>> + ADC_V2,
>>>>>> + ADC_V2_EXYNOS3250,
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /* EXYNOS4412/5250 ADC_V1 registers definitions */
>>>>>> @@ -85,9 +86,11 @@ enum adc_version {
>>>>>> #define EXYNOS_ADC_TIMEOUT (msecs_to_jiffies(100))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct exynos_adc {
>>>>>> + struct device *dev;
>>>>>> void __iomem *regs;
>>>>>> void __iomem *enable_reg;
>>>>>> struct clk *clk;
>>>>>> + struct clk *sclk;
>>>>>> unsigned int irq;
>>>>>> struct regulator *vdd;
>>>>>> struct exynos_adc_ops *ops;
>>>>>> @@ -96,6 +99,7 @@ struct exynos_adc {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> u32 value;
>>>>>> unsigned int version;
>>>>>> + bool needs_sclk;
>>>>>
>>>>> This should be rather a part of the variant struct. See my comments to
>>>>> patch 1/4.
>>>>
>>>> OK, I'll include 'needs_sclk' in "variant" structure.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct exynos_adc_ops {
>>>>>> @@ -103,11 +107,21 @@ struct exynos_adc_ops {
>>>>>> void (*clear_irq)(struct exynos_adc *info);
>>>>>> void (*start_conv)(struct exynos_adc *info, unsigned long addr);
>>>>>> void (*stop_conv)(struct exynos_adc *info);
>>>>>> + void (*disable_clk)(struct exynos_adc *info);
>>>>>> + int (*enable_clk)(struct exynos_adc *info);
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static const struct of_device_id exynos_adc_match[] = {
>>>>>> - { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v1", .data = (void *)ADC_V1 },
>>>>>> - { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v2", .data = (void *)ADC_V2 },
>>>>>> + {
>>>>>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v1",
>>>>>> + .data = (void *)ADC_V1,
>>>>>> + }, {
>>>>>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v2",
>>>>>> + .data = (void *)ADC_V2,
>>>>>> + }, {
>>>>>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos3250-adc-v2",
>>>>>> + .data = (void *)ADC_V2_EXYNOS3250,
>>>>>> + },
>>>>>> {},
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, exynos_adc_match);
>>>>>> @@ -156,11 +170,42 @@ static void exynos_adc_v1_stop_conv(struct exynos_adc *info)
>>>>>> writel(con, ADC_V1_CON(info->regs));
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static void exynos_adc_disable_clk(struct exynos_adc *info)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + if (info->needs_sclk)
>>>>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->sclk);
>>>>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->clk);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static int exynos_adc_enable_clk(struct exynos_adc *info)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(info->clk);
>>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(info->dev, "failed enabling adc clock: %d\n", ret);
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (info->needs_sclk) {
>>>>>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(info->sclk);
>>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->clk);
>>>>>> + dev_err(info->dev,
>>>>>> + "failed enabling sclk_tsadc clock: %d\n", ret);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> static struct exynos_adc_ops exynos_adc_v1_ops = {
>>>>>> .init_hw = exynos_adc_v1_init_hw,
>>>>>> .clear_irq = exynos_adc_v1_clear_irq,
>>>>>> .start_conv = exynos_adc_v1_start_conv,
>>>>>> .stop_conv = exynos_adc_v1_stop_conv,
>>>>>> + .disable_clk = exynos_adc_disable_clk,
>>>>>> + .enable_clk = exynos_adc_enable_clk,
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static void exynos_adc_v2_init_hw(struct exynos_adc *info)
>>>>>> @@ -210,6 +255,8 @@ static struct exynos_adc_ops exynos_adc_v2_ops = {
>>>>>> .start_conv = exynos_adc_v2_start_conv,
>>>>>> .clear_irq = exynos_adc_v2_clear_irq,
>>>>>> .stop_conv = exynos_adc_v2_stop_conv,
>>>>>> + .disable_clk = exynos_adc_disable_clk,
>>>>>> + .enable_clk = exynos_adc_enable_clk,
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on the fact that all variants use the same function, I don't think
>>>>> there is a reason to add .{disable,enable}_clk in the ops struct. If
>>>>> they diverge in future, they could be added later, but right now it
>>>>> doesn't have any value.
>>>>
>>>> OK, I'll not add .{disable,enable}_clk and then just use following functions for clock control:
>>>> - exynos_adc_prepare_clk() : once execute this function in _probe()
>>>> - exynos_adc_unprepare_clk() : once execute this function in _remove()
>>>> - exynos_adc_enable_clk()
>>>> - exynos_adc_disable_clk()
>>>
>>> Is there any need to separate prepare/unprepare from enable/disable?
>>> Otherwise sounds good, thanks.
>>
>> Naveen Krishna Chatradhi want to execute once prepare/unpreare in probe/remove function.
>>
>> - Following comment of Naveen Krishna Chatradhi
>>> +static void exynos_adc_disable_clk(struct exynos_adc *info)
>>> +{
>>> + if (info->needs_sclk)
>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->sclk);
>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->clk);
>>
>> (Just a nit pick) As a part of cleanup can we also change to use
>> clk_disable() here and clk_unprepare() once and for all at the end.
>>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int exynos_adc_enable_clk(struct exynos_adc *info)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(info->clk);
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + dev_err(info->dev, "failed enabling adc clock: %d\n", ret);
>>> + return ret;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (info->needs_sclk) {
>>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(info->sclk);
>> Can we use clk_enable() here and clk_prepare() some where during the probe.
>
> I still don't see any reason to do it. Naveen, what's the motivation for
> this change? For me, it only complicates the code, without any added value.
clk_prepare() and clk_unprepare() maintains the clk prepare count.
Which we may not need for every transaction.
We just need to clk_enable() and clk_disable() the clock carefully.
Thus, using clk_prepare() and clk_unprepare() once should reduce a set of
instructions for every transaction. Right ?
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Shine bright,
(: Nav :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
