On 7/19/2018 11:25 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Taniya Das <tdas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Doug,
Please find my comments inline.
On 7/18/2018 11:34 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
Add both the interface and core clock.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sdm845.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 73 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sdm845.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sdm845.c
index 0f694ed4238a..2ee96f9bc217 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sdm845.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sdm845.c
@@ -162,6 +162,20 @@ static const char * const gcc_parent_names_10[] = {
"core_bi_pll_test_se",
};
+static const struct parent_map gcc_parent_map_9[] = {
+ { P_BI_TCXO, 0 },
+ { P_GPLL0_OUT_MAIN, 1 },
+ { P_GPLL0_OUT_EVEN, 6 },
+ { P_SLEEP_CLK, 7 },
SRC 7 has 'core_bi_pll_test_se' and not 'sleep_clk'.
Please use the 'gcc_parent_map_0'
Are you sure? I'm looking at a doc showing the bitfields of
GCC_QSPI_CORE_CFG_RCGR. It says:
0x0: bi_tcxo.
0x1: gpll0_out_main.
0x6: gpll0_out_even.
0x7: sleep_clk.
This contrasts with other clocks using 'gcc_parent_map_0' (for
instance "gcc_qupv3_wrap0_s0_clk_src") where 0x7 is simply not listed
in my doc.
...so either my doc is wrong or yours is. Any way to resolve that?
I am not sure of the document you are referring, but the connectivity
details I have shared are from the design side and they are ones which
we have to follow.
+};
+
+static const char * const gcc_parent_names_9[] = {
+ "bi_tcxo",
+ "gpll0",
+ "gpll0_out_even",
+ "core_pi_sleep_clk",
+};
+
static struct clk_alpha_pll gpll0 = {
.offset = 0x0,
.regs = clk_alpha_pll_regs[CLK_ALPHA_PLL_TYPE_FABIA],
@@ -358,6 +372,31 @@ static struct clk_rcg2 gcc_pcie_phy_refgen_clk_src =
{
},
};
+static const struct freq_tbl ftbl_gcc_qspi_core_clk_src[] = {
+ F(19200000, P_BI_TCXO, 1, 0, 0),
+ F(50000000, P_GPLL0_OUT_EVEN, 6, 0, 0),
+ F(75000000, P_GPLL0_OUT_EVEN, 4, 0, 0),
+ F(100000000, P_GPLL0_OUT_EVEN, 3, 0, 0),
Is SW planning to use this frequency?
At the moment I actually am using it. I haven't done signal analysis,
but in quick testing I couldn't properly read the SPI at faster than a
25 MHz SPI bus which translates to 100 MHz here. Interestingly, it
seems like folks in your boot team came to the same conclusion since I
see them setting this bus to 100 MHz at
<https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/coreboot/+/25392/25/src/soc/qualcomm/sdm845/bootblock.c>
too.
+ F(150000000, P_GPLL0_OUT_EVEN, 2, 0, 0),
F(150000000, P_GPLL0_OUT_MAIN, 4, 0, 0),
Sure. For my edification, is there a reason to use main vs. even?
The frequencies to be generated are also as per design data. These
source usage depends on timing closure for certain max frequencies.
+ F(300000000, P_GPLL0_OUT_EVEN, 1, 0, 0),
F(300000000, P_GPLL0_OUT_MAIN, 2, 0, 0),
No problem.
+ F(400000000, P_GPLL0_OUT_MAIN, 1.5, 0, 0),
No problem.
Please remove this, the Max supported frequency is 300MHz.
+ { }
+};
+
+static struct clk_rcg2 gcc_qspi_core_clk_src = {
+ .cmd_rcgr = 0x4b008,
+ .mnd_width = 0,
+ .hid_width = 5,
+ .parent_map = gcc_parent_map_9,
+ .freq_tbl = ftbl_gcc_qspi_core_clk_src,
+ .clkr.hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
+ .name = "gcc_qspi_core_clk_src",
+ .parent_names = gcc_parent_names_9,
+ .num_parents = 4,
+ .ops = &clk_rcg2_floor_ops,
Could we use the rcg2_ops instead?
I'd rather not. Any reason why you think that'd be a good idea?
Specifically imagine that we have a SPI flash chip that's rated to run
at a max of 20 MHz. In the device tree we'd ideally want to specify:
spi-max-frequency = <20000000>;
It appears that we need to run the SPI core as 4 times the rate of the
SPI bus, so we'd try to set this clock to 80 MHz. If we round up
we'll end up at 100 MHz or 150 MHz for the SPI core and have a SPI bus
rate of 25 MHz or 37.5 MHz. That would violate the whole idea of
"spi-max-frequency". It's much better to round down to 75 MHz.
In general I've always seen that for safety it's always better the
round clocks down and round voltage up, so I was actually confused by
the fact that most of the clocks in this file used rcg2_ops instead of
clk_rcg2_floor_ops... I'd be curious if we should we change more of
them to clk_rcg2_floor_ops. As a random example I'll take
"gcc_sdcc2_apps_clk_src". If someone happened to have a full sized SD
slot and put an MMC card in then you'd be in trouble. Why?
For MMC a valid rate to request is 52000000. When the SD card core
requests this you'll round up to 100 MHz. Oops. That makes the card
not work.
I just happen to have a micro to full size adapter at my desk and a
2GB MMC card and I can confirm that's a true bug that prevents this
card from enumerating. Changing this to a clk_rcg2_floor_ops fixes
it. True that it's unlikely anyone will really plug a MMC card into
this slot, but I fail to see the advantage of rounding up when
rounding down is safer.
These ops were mostly for SDCC/MMC usage only as this was a requirement
of rounding the frequency, as the clock framework didn't provide any
such API. The QSPI should be safe to use the normal rcg ops as the
frequency requests should be from the table itself. Thus request is to
move to use the rcg2_ops.
-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-clk" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
