On Wednesday 21 of August 2013 17:48:44 Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
> Hi Tomasz,
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This patch implements round_rate and set_rate callbacks of PLL45xx
> > driver to allow reconfiguration of PLL at runtime.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c | 109
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.h | 10 ++++
> > 2 files changed, 118 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c
> > b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c index b0398d2..cb971cb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c
> > @@ -10,9 +10,12 @@
> >
> > */
> >
> > #include <linux/errno.h>
> >
> > +#include <linux/hrtimer.h>
> >
> > #include "clk.h"
> > #include "clk-pll.h"
> >
> > +#define PLL_TIMEOUT_MS 10
> > +
> >
> > struct samsung_clk_pll {
> >
> > struct clk_hw hw;
> > void __iomem *lock_reg;
> >
> > @@ -272,13 +275,20 @@ static const struct clk_ops
> > samsung_pll36xx_clk_min_ops = {>
> > /*
> >
> > * PLL45xx Clock Type
> > */
> >
> > +#define PLL4502_LOCK_FACTOR 400
> > +#define PLL4508_LOCK_FACTOR 240
> >
> > #define PLL45XX_MDIV_MASK (0x3FF)
> > #define PLL45XX_PDIV_MASK (0x3F)
> > #define PLL45XX_SDIV_MASK (0x7)
> >
> > +#define PLL45XX_AFC_MASK (0x1F)
> >
> > #define PLL45XX_MDIV_SHIFT (16)
> > #define PLL45XX_PDIV_SHIFT (8)
> > #define PLL45XX_SDIV_SHIFT (0)
> >
> > +#define PLL45XX_AFC_SHIFT (0)
> > +
> > +#define PLL45XX_ENABLE BIT(31)
> > +#define PLL45XX_LOCKED BIT(29)
> >
> > static unsigned long samsung_pll45xx_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> >
> > unsigned long parent_rate)
> >
> > @@ -301,8 +311,100 @@ static unsigned long
> > samsung_pll45xx_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,>
> > return (unsigned long)fvco;
> >
> > }
> >
> > +static bool samsung_pll45xx_mp_change(u32 pll_con0, u32 pll_con1,
> > + const struct samsung_pll_rate_table
> > *rate) +{
> > + u32 old_mdiv, old_pdiv, old_afc;
> > +
> > + old_mdiv = (pll_con0 >> PLL45XX_MDIV_SHIFT) &
> > PLL45XX_MDIV_MASK;
> > + old_pdiv = (pll_con0 >> PLL45XX_PDIV_SHIFT) &
> > PLL45XX_PDIV_MASK;
> > + old_afc = (pll_con1 >> PLL45XX_AFC_SHIFT) & PLL45XX_AFC_MASK;
>
> old_afc doesn't required in this function.
>
> > +
> > + return (old_mdiv != rate->mdiv || old_pdiv != rate->pdiv);
Actually it should be included in the comparison above. Thanks for
spotting.
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int samsung_pll45xx_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long
> > drate, + unsigned long prate)
> > +{
> > + struct samsung_clk_pll *pll = to_clk_pll(hw);
> > + const struct samsung_pll_rate_table *rate;
> > + u32 con0, con1;
> > + ktime_t start;
> > +
> > + /* Get required rate settings from table */
> > + rate = samsung_get_pll_settings(pll, drate);
> > + if (!rate) {
> > + pr_err("%s: Invalid rate : %lu for pll clk %s\n",
> > __func__, + drate, __clk_get_name(hw->clk));
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + con0 = __raw_readl(pll->con_reg);
> > + con1 = __raw_readl(pll->con_reg + 0x4);
> > +
> > + if (!(samsung_pll45xx_mp_change(con0, con1, rate))) {
> > + /* If only s change, change just s value only*/
> > + con0 &= ~(PLL45XX_SDIV_MASK << PLL45XX_SDIV_SHIFT);
> > + con0 |= rate->sdiv << PLL45XX_SDIV_SHIFT;
> > + __raw_writel(con0, pll->con_reg);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Set PLL PMS values. */
> > + con0 &= ~((PLL45XX_MDIV_MASK << PLL45XX_MDIV_SHIFT) |
> > + (PLL45XX_PDIV_MASK << PLL45XX_PDIV_SHIFT) |
> > + (PLL45XX_SDIV_MASK << PLL45XX_SDIV_SHIFT));
> > + con0 |= (rate->mdiv << PLL45XX_MDIV_SHIFT) |
> > + (rate->pdiv << PLL45XX_PDIV_SHIFT) |
> > + (rate->sdiv << PLL45XX_SDIV_SHIFT);
> > +
> > + /* Set PLL AFC value. */
> > + con1 = __raw_readl(pll->con_reg + 0x4);
> > + con1 &= ~(PLL45XX_AFC_MASK << PLL45XX_AFC_SHIFT);
> > + con1 |= (rate->afc << PLL45XX_AFC_SHIFT);
> > +
>
> Do we need to take care of AFC_ENB also, if we are using AFC ?
I'm not really sure. The original vendor code seems to not touch this bit
at all, assuming that it has been configured by the bootloader.
We should take care for the AFC coefficient, though, as AFC might have been
enabled at bootup.
I'd like to hear an opinion from someone from SLSI. Kukjin, Jingoo, do you
know anything about this?
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
