On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 08:56:34AM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> From: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The driver is currently only tested on Tegra124 Jetson TK1, but should
> work with other Tegra124 boards, provided that correct EMC tables are
> provided through the device tree. Older chip models have differing
> timing change sequences, so they are not currently supported.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-emc.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-emc.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..75beacd
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-emc.c
[...]
> +/*
> + * Rounds up unless no higher rate exists, in which case down. This way is
> + * safer since things have EMC rate floors. Also don't touch parent_rate
> + * since we don't want the CCF to play with our parent clocks.
> + */
> +static long emc_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> + unsigned long *parent_rate)
> +{
> + struct tegra_emc *tegra = container_of(hw, struct tegra_emc, hw);
> + u8 ram_code = tegra_read_ram_code();
> + struct emc_timing *timing;
> + int i;
> +
> + /*
> + * Returning the original rate will lead to a more sensible error
> + * message when emc_set_rate fails.
> + */
> + if (tegra->num_timings == 0)
> + return rate;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < tegra->num_timings; ++i) {
> + timing = tegra->timings + i;
> + if (timing->ram_code != ram_code)
> + continue;
Is timing->ram_code != ram_code really something that is allowed?
> +
> + if (timing->rate >= rate)
> + return timing->rate;
> + }
> +
> + return tegra->timings[tegra->num_timings - 1].rate;
If tegra->timings has timings for different ram_codes, the last timing
might not be for the requested ram_code.
> +}
--
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
