On Tue 01 Mar 2022 at 14:49, Yu Tu <yu.tu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Jerome,
>
> On 2022/2/28 19:10, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>>
>> On Fri 25 Feb 2022 at 15:39, Yu Tu <yu.tu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Using the common Clock code to describe the UART baud rate clock
>>> makes it easier for the UART driver to be compatible with the
>>> baud rate requirements of the UART IP on different meson chips.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Tu <yu.tu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.c | 194 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>> 1 file changed, 142 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.c
>>> index 7570958d010c..4768d51fac70 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.c
>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>> */
>>> #include <linux/clk.h>
>>> +#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>>> #include <linux/console.h>
>>> #include <linux/delay.h>
>>> #include <linux/init.h>
>>> @@ -65,9 +66,7 @@
>>> #define AML_UART_RECV_IRQ(c) ((c) & 0xff)
>>> /* AML_UART_REG5 bits */
>>> -#define AML_UART_BAUD_MASK 0x7fffff
>>> #define AML_UART_BAUD_USE BIT(23)
>>> -#define AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL BIT(24)
>>> #define AML_UART_PORT_NUM 12
>>> #define AML_UART_PORT_OFFSET 6
>>> @@ -76,6 +75,11 @@
>>> #define AML_UART_POLL_USEC 5
>>> #define AML_UART_TIMEOUT_USEC 10000
>>> +struct meson_uart_data {
>>> + struct clk *baud_clk;
>>> + bool use_xtal_clk;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> static struct uart_driver meson_uart_driver;
>>> static struct uart_port *meson_ports[AML_UART_PORT_NUM];
>>> @@ -293,19 +297,17 @@ static int meson_uart_startup(struct uart_port *port)
>>> static void meson_uart_change_speed(struct uart_port *port, unsigned
>>> long baud)
>>> {
>>> + struct meson_uart_data *private_data = port->private_data;
>>> u32 val;
>>> while (!meson_uart_tx_empty(port))
>>> cpu_relax();
>>> - if (port->uartclk == 24000000) {
>>> - val = ((port->uartclk / 3) / baud) - 1;
>>> - val |= AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL;
>>> - } else {
>>> - val = ((port->uartclk * 10 / (baud * 4) + 5) / 10) - 1;
>>> - }
>>> + val = readl(port->membase + AML_UART_REG5);
>>> val |= AML_UART_BAUD_USE;
>>> writel(val, port->membase + AML_UART_REG5);
>>> +
>>> + clk_set_rate(private_data->baud_clk, baud);
>>> }
>>> static void meson_uart_set_termios(struct uart_port *port,
>>> @@ -395,11 +397,20 @@ static int meson_uart_verify_port(struct uart_port *port,
>>> static void meson_uart_release_port(struct uart_port *port)
>>> {
>>> - /* nothing to do */
>>> + struct meson_uart_data *private_data = port->private_data;
>>> +
>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(private_data->baud_clk);
>>> }
>>> static int meson_uart_request_port(struct uart_port *port)
>>> {
>>> + struct meson_uart_data *private_data = port->private_data;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(private_data->baud_clk);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>> I think we already discussed that. This is yet another behavior change
>> Previously, enabling the clock was done at probe time.
>> It's fine to change it, if there is a justification, but not in the same
>> change as the rework of the divider
>>
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> @@ -629,57 +640,106 @@ static struct uart_driver meson_uart_driver = {
>>> .cons = MESON_SERIAL_CONSOLE,
>>> };
>>> -static inline struct clk *meson_uart_probe_clock(struct device *dev,
>>> - const char *id)
>>> -{
>>> - struct clk *clk = NULL;
>>> - int ret;
>>> -
>>> - clk = devm_clk_get(dev, id);
>>> - if (IS_ERR(clk))
>>> - return clk;
>>> -
>>> - ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
>>> - if (ret) {
>>> - dev_err(dev, "couldn't enable clk\n");
>>> - return ERR_PTR(ret);
>>> - }
>>> +static const struct clk_div_table xtal_div_table[] = {
>>> + { 0, 3 },
>>> + { 1, 1 },
>>> + { 2, 2 },
>>> + { 3, 2 },
>>> +};
>>> - devm_add_action_or_reset(dev,
>>> - (void(*)(void *))clk_disable_unprepare,
>>> - clk);
>>> +static u32 use_xtal_mux_table;
>>> - return clk;
>>> -}
>>> -
>>> -static int meson_uart_probe_clocks(struct platform_device *pdev,
>>> - struct uart_port *port)
>>> +static int meson_uart_probe_clocks(struct uart_port *port)
>>> {
>>> - struct clk *clk_xtal = NULL;
>>> - struct clk *clk_pclk = NULL;
>>> - struct clk *clk_baud = NULL;
>>> + struct meson_uart_data *private_data = port->private_data;
>>> + struct clk *clk_baud, *clk_xtal;
>>> + struct clk_hw *hw, *clk81_div4_hw;
>>> + char clk_name[32];
>>> + struct clk_parent_data use_xtal_mux_parents;
>>> - clk_pclk = meson_uart_probe_clock(&pdev->dev, "pclk");
>>> - if (IS_ERR(clk_pclk))
>>> - return PTR_ERR(clk_pclk);
>>> + clk_baud = devm_clk_get(port->dev, "baud");
>>> + if (IS_ERR(clk_baud)) {
>>> + dev_err(port->dev, "Failed to get the 'baud' clock\n");
>>> + return PTR_ERR(clk_baud);
>>> + }
>> Calling devm_clk_get() would not be necessary if you used "fw_name" in
>> the parent table. Same bellow
> Personally, I think it is good that you can understand your meaning, but as
> you are an expert in CCF, it is nice to write code in that way, but for
> people who are not unfamiliar with CCF, they may only care about the use of
> CCF.It's not pretty to use but it's easy to understand.
There is no magic in CCF. Stephen and the other contributor took time to
add the fw_name mechanism espcially for this. I'm suggesting and you are
expected to actually look at the code and considerer it. Lack of
"expertize" is not a valid argument.
>>
>>> - clk_xtal = meson_uart_probe_clock(&pdev->dev, "xtal");
>>> + clk_xtal = devm_clk_get(port->dev, "xtal");
>>> if (IS_ERR(clk_xtal))
>>> - return PTR_ERR(clk_xtal);
>>> -
>>> - clk_baud = meson_uart_probe_clock(&pdev->dev, "baud");
>>> - if (IS_ERR(clk_baud))
>>> - return PTR_ERR(clk_baud);
>>> + return dev_err_probe(port->dev, PTR_ERR(clk_xtal),
>>> + "Failed to get the 'xtal' clock\n");
>>> +
>>> + snprintf(clk_name, sizeof(clk_name), "%s#%s", dev_name(port->dev),
>>> + "clk81_div4");
>>> + clk81_div4_hw = devm_clk_hw_register_fixed_factor(port->dev,
>>> + clk_name,
>>> + __clk_get_name(clk_baud),
>>> + CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT,
>>> + 1, 4);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(clk81_div4_hw))
>>> + return PTR_ERR(clk81_div4_hw);
>> So, whatever the chip type - you register a fixed 4 divider ....
> As you suggested last time, this CLK has been stored, but some chips are
> not used. If you have better suggestions, please let me know and I can
> make corrections later.
No, never suggested that. I suspected that 4 divider design was the same
on all SoC version. You reported it was not, So I don't get this
>>
>>> +
>>> + snprintf(clk_name, sizeof(clk_name), "%s#%s", dev_name(port->dev),
>>> + "xtal_div");
>>> + hw = devm_clk_hw_register_divider_table(port->dev,
>>> + clk_name,
>>> + __clk_get_name(clk_baud),
>>> + CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT,
>>> + port->membase + AML_UART_REG5,
>>> + 26, 2,
>>> + CLK_DIVIDER_READ_ONLY,
>>> + xtal_div_table, NULL);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(hw))
>>> + return PTR_ERR(hw);
>>> +
>>> + if (private_data->use_xtal_clk) {
>>> + use_xtal_mux_table = 1;
>>> + use_xtal_mux_parents.hw = hw;
>>> + } else {
>>> + use_xtal_mux_parents.hw = clk81_div4_hw;
>> ... which you may end up not using in the end
>> This is bad.
> If you have better suggestions, please let me know and I can make
> corrections later.
>>
>>> + }
>>> - port->uartclk = clk_get_rate(clk_baud);
>>> + snprintf(clk_name, sizeof(clk_name), "%s#%s", dev_name(port->dev),
>>> + "use_xtal");
>>> + hw = __devm_clk_hw_register_mux(port->dev, NULL,
>>> + clk_name,
>>> + 1,
>>> + NULL, NULL,
>>> + &use_xtal_mux_parents,
>>> + CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
>>> + port->membase + AML_UART_REG5,
>>> + 24, 0x1,
>>> + CLK_MUX_READ_ONLY,
>>> + &use_xtal_mux_table, NULL);
>>> +
>>> + if (IS_ERR(hw))
>>> + return PTR_ERR(hw);
>>> +
>>> + port->uartclk = clk_hw_get_rate(hw);
>>> +
>>> + snprintf(clk_name, sizeof(clk_name), "%s#%s", dev_name(port->dev),
>>> + "baud_div");
>>> + hw = devm_clk_hw_register_divider(port->dev,
>>> + clk_name,
>>> + clk_hw_get_name(hw),
>>> + CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
>>> + port->membase + AML_UART_REG5,
>>> + 0, 23,
>>> + CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST,
>>> + NULL);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(hw))
>>> + return PTR_ERR(hw);
>>> +
>>> + private_data->baud_clk = hw->clk;
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> static int meson_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> {
>>> + struct meson_uart_data *private_data;
>>> struct resource *res_mem;
>>> struct uart_port *port;
>>> + struct clk *pclk;
>>> u32 fifosize = 64; /* Default is 64, 128 for EE UART_0 */
>>> int ret = 0;
>>> int irq;
>>> @@ -705,6 +765,15 @@ static int meson_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> if (!res_mem)
>>> return -ENODEV;
>>> + pclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "pclk");
>>> + if (IS_ERR(pclk))
>>> + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(pclk),
>>> + "Failed to get the 'pclk' clock\n");
>>> +
>>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(pclk);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>> if (irq < 0)
>>> return irq;
>>> @@ -724,9 +793,13 @@ static int meson_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> if (IS_ERR(port->membase))
>>> return PTR_ERR(port->membase);
>>> - ret = meson_uart_probe_clocks(pdev, port);
>>> - if (ret)
>>> - return ret;
>>> + private_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*private_data),
>>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!private_data)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + if (device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev))
>>> + private_data->use_xtal_clk = true;
>> As long as the device matches a compatible below, the flag will end up
>> 'true', regardless of values in the the dt_match table.
>> I don't think this is the intended behavior.
>> It highlights that proper testing of this series is important.
>> Being at Amlogic, I'm sure you can test on more than just g12a and s4
>>
> I believe with your experience this may be a real problem. I heard that
> your company has our boards. If so, can you help verify it?
>>> port->iotype = UPIO_MEM;
>>> port->mapbase = res_mem->start;
>>> @@ -740,6 +813,11 @@ static int meson_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> port->x_char = 0;
>>> port->ops = &meson_uart_ops;
>>> port->fifosize = fifosize;
>>> + port->private_data = private_data;
>>> +
>>> + ret = meson_uart_probe_clocks(port);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> meson_ports[pdev->id] = port;
>>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, port);
>>> @@ -766,10 +844,22 @@ static int meson_uart_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> }
>>> static const struct of_device_id meson_uart_dt_match[] = {
>>> - { .compatible = "amlogic,meson6-uart" },
>>> - { .compatible = "amlogic,meson8-uart" },
>>> - { .compatible = "amlogic,meson8b-uart" },
>>> - { .compatible = "amlogic,meson-gx-uart" },
>>> + {
>>> + .compatible = "amlogic,meson6-uart",
>>> + .data = (void *)false,
>>> + },
>>> + {
>>> + .compatible = "amlogic,meson8-uart",
>>> + .data = (void *)false,
>>> + },
>>> + {
>>> + .compatible = "amlogic,meson8b-uart",
>>> + .data = (void *)false,
>>> + },
>>> + {
>>> + .compatible = "amlogic,meson-gx-uart",
>>> + .data = (void *)true,
>>> + },
>>> { /* sentinel */ },
>>> };
>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, meson_uart_dt_match);
>>
