On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 6:30 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 06:24:34PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > Unfortunately default CSI_SCLK rate cannot work properly to
> > drive the connected sensor interface, particularly on few
> > Allwinner SoC's like A64.
> >
> > So, add mod_rate quirk via driver data so-that the respective
> > SoC's which require to alter the default mod clock rate can assign
> > the operating clock rate.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c | 34 +++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c b/drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c
> > index ee882b66a5ea..fe002beae09c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> > #include <linux/ioctl.h>
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > #include <linux/of.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> > #include <linux/regmap.h>
> > @@ -28,8 +29,13 @@
> >
> > #define MODULE_NAME "sun6i-csi"
> >
> > +struct sun6i_csi_variant {
> > + unsigned long mod_rate;
> > +};
> > +
> > struct sun6i_csi_dev {
> > struct sun6i_csi csi;
> > + const struct sun6i_csi_variant *variant;
> > struct device *dev;
> >
> > struct regmap *regmap;
> > @@ -822,33 +828,43 @@ static int sun6i_csi_resource_request(struct sun6i_csi_dev *sdev,
> > return PTR_ERR(sdev->clk_mod);
> > }
> >
> > + if (sdev->variant->mod_rate)
> > + clk_set_rate_exclusive(sdev->clk_mod, sdev->variant->mod_rate);
> > +
>
> It still doesn't make any sense to do it in the probe function...
I'm not sure we discussed about the context wrt probe, we discussed
about exclusive put clock. Since clocks were enabling in set_power and
clock rate can be set during probe in single time instead of setting
it in set_power for every power enablement. anything wrong with that.
>
> We discussed this in the previous iteration already.
>
> What we didn't discuss is the variant function that you introduce,
> while the previous approach was enough.
We discussed about clk_rate_exclusive_put, and that even handle it in
.remove right? so I have variant to handle it in sun6i_csi_remove.
