2015-07-11 1:12 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Hello Krzysztof, > > On 07/10/2015 01:30 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 10.07.2015 00:43, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >>> With the addition of the new Samsung specific cpu-clock type, the >>> arm clock can be represented as a cpu-clock type. Add the CPU clock >>> configuration data and instantiate the CPU clock type for Exynos4x12. >>> >>> Based on the earlier work by Thomas Abraham. >>> >>> Cc: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos4.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos4.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos4.c >>> index cae2c048..3071260 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos4.c >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos4.c >>> @@ -1396,6 +1396,45 @@ static const struct exynos_cpuclk_cfg_data e4210_armclk_d[] __initconst = { >>> { 0 }, >>> }; >>> >>> +static const struct exynos_cpuclk_cfg_data e4212_armclk_d[] __initconst = { >>> + { 1500000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 6, 0, 7, 3), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 6), }, >>> + { 1400000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 6, 0, 7, 3), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 6), }, >>> + { 1300000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 5, 0, 7, 3), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 5), }, >>> + { 1200000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 5, 0, 7, 3), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 5), }, >>> + { 1100000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 4, 0, 6, 3), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 4), }, >>> + { 1000000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 4, 0, 5, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 4), }, >>> + { 900000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 5, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), }, >>> + { 800000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 5, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), }, >>> + { 700000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), }, >>> + { 600000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), }, >>> + { 500000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), }, >>> + { 400000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), }, >>> + { 300000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 2, 0, 4, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), }, >>> + { 200000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 1, 0, 3, 1), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), }, >>> + { 0 }, >>> +}; >>> + >>> +#define E4412_CPU_DIV1(cores, hpm, copy) \ >>> + (((cores) << 8) | ((hpm) << 4) | ((copy) << 0)) >>> + >>> +static const struct exynos_cpuclk_cfg_data e4412_armclk_d[] __initconst = { >>> + { 1500000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 6, 0, 7, 3), E4412_CPU_DIV1(7, 0, 6), }, >>> + { 1400000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 6, 0, 7, 3), E4412_CPU_DIV1(6, 0, 6), }, >>> + { 1300000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 5, 0, 7, 3), E4412_CPU_DIV1(6, 0, 5), }, >>> + { 1200000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 5, 0, 7, 3), E4412_CPU_DIV1(5, 0, 5), }, >>> + { 1100000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 4, 0, 6, 3), E4412_CPU_DIV1(5, 0, 4), }, >>> + { 1000000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 4, 0, 5, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(4, 0, 4), }, >>> + { 900000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 5, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(4, 0, 3), }, >>> + { 800000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 5, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(3, 0, 3), }, >>> + { 700000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(3, 0, 3), }, >>> + { 600000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(2, 0, 3), }, >>> + { 500000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(2, 0, 3), }, >>> + { 400000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(1, 0, 3), }, >>> + { 300000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 2, 0, 4, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(1, 0, 3), }, >>> + { 200000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 1, 0, 3, 1), E4412_CPU_DIV1(0, 0, 3), }, >>> + { 0 }, >>> +}; >> >> Numbers look fine! >> >>> + >>> /* register exynos4 clocks */ >>> static void __init exynos4_clk_init(struct device_node *np, >>> enum exynos4_soc soc) >>> @@ -1489,6 +1528,17 @@ static void __init exynos4_clk_init(struct device_node *np, >>> samsung_clk_register_fixed_factor(ctx, >>> exynos4x12_fixed_factor_clks, >>> ARRAY_SIZE(exynos4x12_fixed_factor_clks)); >>> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4412")) { >> >> The driver uses here enum exynos4_soc to differentiate between SoC >> (unless I missed some changes). This of_machine_is_compatible() makes >> sense but introduces inconsistency. I would prefer sticking to one >> convention: always enum or switch everything (before this patch) to >> of_compatible. >> > > When reviewing this patch I also ran into the same thing because as you > said, it's not consistent. But digging a little bit I found that is not > that easy since the two are not checking exactly the same. > > The enum is to differentiate between "samsung,exynos4412-clock" and > "samsung,exynos4210-clock" while the of_machine_is_compatible() is for > "samsung,exynos4412" and "samsung,exynos4212". > > The problem is that both exynos4412 and exynos4212 use the same > "samsung,exynos4412-clock" compatible for their clock controller nodes. > But there are differences so it would had been better to also have a > "samsung,exynos4212-clock" to avoid the of_machine_is_compatible() but > that is not possible anymore without breaking DT backward compatibility. > > On the other hand, if of_machine_is_compatible() is used for everything, > then there is no point anymore to have both "samsung,exynos4412-clock" > and "samsung,exynos4210-clock". A single "samsung,exynos4-clock" plus > checking the SoC would had been enough. > > That's why I thought that Bart's approach was sensible although is true > that the of_compatible() check can be moved to exynos4412_clk_init() > and the enum be extended so at least exynos4_clk_init() is consistent. You're right, I missed that difference. Thanks for explaining, I agree now: Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> Best regards, Krzysztof -- 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