On 10/16/2013 01:48 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:20:03PM +0200, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 10/15/2013 09:14 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
>>> Tegra124 introduces a new PLL type, PLLSS. Add support for it.
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
>>
>>
>>> +static int clk_pllss_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>>> + unsigned long parent_rate)
>>
>> This function seems pretty generic. Is it possible to share a bit more
>> code with any of the other pllXXX_set_rate() functions?
>>
>>> +struct clk *tegra_clk_register_pllss(const char *name, const char *parent_name,
>>> + void __iomem *clk_base, unsigned long flags,
>>> + struct tegra_clk_pll_params *pll_params,
>>> + spinlock_t *lock)
>>
>>> + val = pll_readl_base(pll);
>>> + if (val & PLLSS_REF_SRC_SEL_MASK) {
>>> + WARN(1, "Unknown parent selected for %s: %d\n", name,
>>> + (val & PLLSS_REF_SRC_SEL_MASK) >>
>>> + PLLSS_REF_SRC_SEL_SHIFT);
>>> + kfree(pll);
>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>> + }
>>
>> If there's a field in HW that muxes the clock input between n clocks,
>> why does this function assume there's a single parent for this PLL, by
>> taking a "const char *parent_name" parameter?
>>
>> What happens if the bootloader changed this field in HW; is the kernel
>> simply not able to boot?
>>
>
> This logic comes from downstream. I guess it means we're running in an
> unvalidated configuration. Do you think we should expose all parents
> anyway? Even if not all configurations have been validated?
> (which is quite likely)
If we only support one particular parent, why not force the register
field to the desired value, rather than failing?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
