On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 03:55:08PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:36 PM Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:48:06AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:40 AM Simon Horman > > > <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Parameterise the offset of control bits within the FRQCRC register > > > > for Z and Z2 clocks. > > > > > > > > This is in preparation for supporting the Z2 clock on the R-Car E3 > > > > (r8a77990) SoC which uses a different offset for control bits to > > > > other, already, supported SoCs. > > > > > > > > This mechanism should be extendable to other clocks, such as ZG, > > > > f.e. by adding the number of control bits as a parameter to > > > > cpg_z_clk_register(). > > > > > > > > As suggested by Geert Uytterhoeven. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/clk/renesas/rcar-gen3-cpg.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/renesas/rcar-gen3-cpg.c > > > > > > > @@ -568,14 +566,9 @@ struct clk * __init rcar_gen3_cpg_clk_register(struct device *dev, > > > > break; > > > > > > > > case CLK_TYPE_GEN3_Z: > > > > - return cpg_z_clk_register(core->name, __clk_get_name(parent), > > > > - base, CPG_FRQCRC_ZFC_MASK, > > > > - core->div); > > > > - > > > > case CLK_TYPE_GEN3_Z2: > > > > return cpg_z_clk_register(core->name, __clk_get_name(parent), > > > > - base, CPG_FRQCRC_Z2FC_MASK, > > > > - core->div); > > > > + base, core->div, core->offset); > > > > > > CLK_TYPE_GEN3_Z and CLK_TYPE_GEN3_Z2 are now the same type. > > > Perhaps they can be merged completely, and be absorbed into the > > > DEF_GEN3_Z() macro? > > > Or not, depending on how ZG support will be added... > > > > Strange, I did have them merged locally and I think that is the right thing > > to do, but some how this version got posted. I think that if they > > subsequently need to be re-split then so be it. But lets not jump > > to conclusions. > > > > I'll plan on posting v4 unless you object. > > OK, eagerly awaiting an even more improved version! Sorry, I was confused (as is often the case). I think that removing the duplicate code, as I have above, is the right thing to do at this point as I do entirely expect the CLK_TYPE_GEN3_Z and CLK_TYPE_GEN3_Z2 cases to diverge again when we add ZG support.
