Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] clk: renesas: rcar-gen3-cpg: add RPC clocks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Sergei,

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 8:51 PM Sergei Shtylyov
<sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The RPCSRC internal clock is controlled by the RPCCKCR.DIV[4:3] on all
> the R-Car gen3 SoCs except V3M (R8A77970) but the encoding of this field
> is different between SoCs; it makes sense to support the most common case
> of this encoding in the R-Car gen3 CPG driver...
>
> After adding the RPCSRC clock, we can add the RPC[D2] clocks derived from
> it and controlled by the RPCCKCR register on all the R-Car gen3 SoCs except
> V3M (R8A77970); the composite clock driver seems handy for this task, using
> the spinlock added in the previous patch...
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> Changes in version 2:
> - merged in the RPCD2 clock support from the next patch;
> - moved in the RPCSRC clock support from the R8A77980 CPG/MSSR driver patch;
> - switched the RPC and RPCSD2 clock support to the composite clock driver;
> - changed the 1st parameter of cpg_rpc[d2]_clk_register();
> - rewrote the patch description, renamed the patch.

Thanks for the update!

> --- renesas-drivers.orig/drivers/clk/renesas/rcar-gen3-cpg.c
> +++ renesas-drivers/drivers/clk/renesas/rcar-gen3-cpg.c
> @@ -415,6 +415,90 @@ free_clock:
>         return clk;
>  }
>
> +struct rpc_clock {
> +       struct clk_divider div;
> +       struct clk_gate gate;
> +       struct cpg_simple_notifier csn;
> +};
> +
> +static const struct clk_div_table cpg_rpcsrc_div_table[] = {
> +       { 2, 5 }, { 3, 6 }, { 0, 0 },
> +};
> +
> +static const struct clk_div_table cpg_rpc_div_table[] = {
> +       { 1, 2 }, { 3, 4 }, { 5, 6 }, { 7, 8 }, { 0, 0 },
> +};
> +
> +static struct clk * __init cpg_rpc_clk_register(const char *name,
> +       void __iomem *base, const char *parent_name,
> +       struct raw_notifier_head *notifiers)
> +{
> +       struct rpc_clock *rpc;
> +       struct clk *clk;
> +
> +       rpc = kzalloc(sizeof(*rpc), GFP_KERNEL);
> +       if (!rpc)
> +               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> +       rpc->div.reg = base + CPG_RPCCKCR;
> +       rpc->div.width = 3;
> +       rpc->div.table = cpg_rpc_div_table;
> +       rpc->div.lock = &cpg_lock;
> +
> +       rpc->gate.reg = base + CPG_RPCCKCR;
> +       rpc->gate.bit_idx = 8;
> +       rpc->gate.flags = CLK_GATE_SET_TO_DISABLE;
> +       rpc->gate.lock = &cpg_lock;
> +
> +       rpc->csn.reg = base + CPG_RPCCKCR;
> +
> +       clk = clk_register_composite(NULL, name, &parent_name, 1, NULL, NULL,
> +                                    &rpc->div.hw,  &clk_divider_ops,
> +                                    &rpc->gate.hw, &clk_gate_ops, 0);
> +       if (IS_ERR(clk))
> +               kfree(rpc);
> +
> +       cpg_simple_notifier_register(notifiers, &rpc->csn);
> +       return clk;
> +}
> +
> +static struct clk * __init cpg_rpcd2_clk_register(const char *name,
> +                                                 void __iomem *base,
> +                                                 const char *parent_name)
> +{
> +       struct clk_fixed_factor *fixed;
> +       struct clk_gate *gate;
> +       struct clk *clk;
> +
> +       fixed = kzalloc(sizeof(*fixed), GFP_KERNEL);
> +       if (!fixed)
> +               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> +       fixed->mult = 1;
> +       fixed->div = 2;
> +
> +       gate = kzalloc(sizeof(*gate), GFP_KERNEL);
> +       if (!gate) {
> +               kfree(fixed);
> +               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +       }

Why allocate two separate structures here, instead of grouping them in a
single struct rpcd2_clock structure, like for the RPC clock?

> +
> +       gate->reg = base + CPG_RPCCKCR;
> +       gate->bit_idx = 9;
> +       gate->flags = CLK_GATE_SET_TO_DISABLE;
> +       gate->lock = &cpg_lock;
> +
> +       clk = clk_register_composite(NULL, name, &parent_name, 1, NULL, NULL,
> +                                    &fixed->hw, &clk_fixed_factor_ops,
> +                                    &gate->hw,  &clk_gate_ops, 0);
> +       if (IS_ERR(clk)) {
> +               kfree(fixed);
> +               kfree(gate);
> +       }

I first wondered why there's no notifier to save/restore the clock during system
PSCI suspend/resume, until I realized the RPC and RPCD2 clocks share the
same hardware register, so saving/restoring the register once is sufficient.
A comment (in struct rpc_clock?) explaining that would be appreciated.

The rest looks good to me.
Using the composite clock seems to have reduced LoC by ca. 60%, nice!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SOC]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux