On 12/11/19 7:45 PM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
On 12/11/19 5:39 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
11.12.2019 21:50, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
On 12/10/19 5:06 PM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
On 12/10/19 9:41 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
10.12.2019 19:53, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
On 12/9/19 3:03 PM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
On 12/9/19 12:46 PM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
On 12/9/19 12:12 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
08.12.2019 00:36, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
On 12/7/19 11:59 AM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
On 12/7/19 8:00 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
07.12.2019 18:53, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
07.12.2019 18:47, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
07.12.2019 17:28, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
06.12.2019 05:48, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
Tegra210 and prior Tegra PMC has clk_out_1, clk_out_2,
clk_out_3
with
mux and gate for each of these clocks.
Currently these PMC clocks are registered by Tegra clock
driver
using
clk_register_mux and clk_register_gate by passing PMC base
address
and register offsets and PMC programming for these clocks
happens
through direct PMC access by the clock driver.
With this, when PMC is in secure mode any direct PMC
access
from the
non-secure world does not go through and these clocks will
not be
functional.
This patch adds these clocks registration with PMC as a
clock
provider
for these clocks. clk_ops callback implementations for
these
clocks
uses tegra_pmc_readl and tegra_pmc_writel which
supports PMC
programming
in secure mode and non-secure mode.
Signed-off-by: Sowjanya Komatineni
<skomatineni@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
[snip]
+
+static const struct clk_ops pmc_clk_gate_ops = {
+ .is_enabled = pmc_clk_is_enabled,
+ .enable = pmc_clk_enable,
+ .disable = pmc_clk_disable,
+};
What's the benefit of separating GATE from the MUX?
I think it could be a single clock.
According to TRM:
1. GATE and MUX are separate entities.
2. GATE is the parent of MUX (see PMC's CLK_OUT paths
diagram
in TRM).
3. PMC doesn't gate EXTPERIPH clock but could "force-enable"
it,
correct?
Was following existing clk-tegra-pmc as I am not sure of
reason for
having these clocks registered as separate mux and gate clocks.
Yes, PMC clocks can be registered as single clock and can use
clk_ops
for set/get parent and enable/disable.
enable/disable of PMC clocks is for force-enable to force the
clock to
run regardless of ACCEPT_REQ or INVERT_REQ.
4. clk_m_div2/4 are internal PMC OSC dividers and thus these
clocks
should belong to PMC.
Also, it should be "osc" and not "clk_m".
I followed the same parents as it were in existing
clk-tegra-pmc
driver.
Yeah they are wrong and they should be from osc and not clk_m.
Will fix in next version.
Reg clk_m_div2/3, they are dividers at OSC pad and not really
internal
to PMC block.
current clock driver creates clk_m_div clocks which should
actually be
osc_div2/osc_div4 clocks with osc as parent.
There are no clk_m_div2 and clk_m_div4 from clk_m
Will fix this in next version.
Could you please describe the full EXTPERIPH clock topology and
how the
pinmux configuration is related to it all?
What is internal to the Tegra chip and what are the external
outputs?
Is it possible to bypass PMC on T30+ for the EXTPERIPH clocks?
PMC CLK1/2/3 possible sources are OSC_DIV1, OSC_DIV2, OSC_DIV4,
EXTPERIPH from CAR.
OSC_DIV1/2/4 are with internal dividers at the OSC Pads
EXTPERIPH is from CAR and it has reset and enable controls
along with
clock source selections to choose one of the PLLA_OUT0, CLK_S,
PLLP_OUT0, CLK_M, PLLE_OUT0
So, PMC CLK1/2/4 possible parents are OSC_DIV1, OSC_DIV2,
OSC_DIV4,
EXTERN.
CLK1/2/3 also has Pinmux to route EXTPERIPH output on to these
pins.
When EXTERN output clock is selected for these PMC clocks thru
CLKx_SRC_SEL, output clock is from driver by EXTPERIPH from CAR
via
Pinmux logic or driven as per CLKx_SRC_SEL bypassing pinmux
based on
CLKx_ACCEPT_REQ bit.
PMC Clock control register has bit CLKx_ACCEPT_REQ
When CLKx_ACCEPT_REQ = 0, output clock driver is from by EXTPERIPH
through the pinmux
When CLKx_ACCEPT_REQ = 1, output clock is based on CLKx_SRC_SEL
bits
(OSC_DIV1/2/4 and EXTPERIPH clock bypassing the pinmux)
FORCE_EN bit in PMC CLock control register forces the clock to run
regardless of this.
PMC clock gate is based on the state of CLKx_ACCEPT_REQ and FORCE_EN
like explained above.
CLKx_ACCEPT_REQ is 0 default and FORCE_EN acts as gate to
enable/disable
EXTPERIPH clock output to PMC CLK_OUT_1/2/3.
[and to enable OSC as well]
So I believe we need to register as MUX and Gate rather than as a
single
clock. Please confirm.
1. The force-enabling is applied to both OSC and EXTERN sources of
PMC_CLK_OUT_x by PMC at once.
2. Both of PMC's force-enabling and OSC/EXTERN selection is internal
to PMC.
Should be better to define it as a single "pmc_clk_out_x". I don't
see
any good reasons for differentiating PMC's Gate from the MUX, it's a
single hardware unit from a point of view of the rest of the system.
Peter, do you have any objections?
We added fallback option for audio mclk and also added check for
assigned-clock-parents dt property in audio driver and if its not then
we do parent init configuration in audio driver.
Current clock driver creates 2 separate clocks clk_out_1_mux and
clk_out_1 for each pmc clock in clock driver and uses extern1 as
parent to clk_out_1_mux and clk_out_1_mux is parent to clk_out_1.
With change of registering each pmc clock as a single clock, when we
do parent init assignment in audio driver when
assigned-clock-properties are not used in DT (as we removed parent
inits for extern and clk_outs from clock driver), we should still try
to get clock based on clk_out_1_mux as parent assignment of extern1 is
for clk_out_1_mux as per existing clock tree.
clk_out_1_mux clock retrieve will fail with this change of single
clock when any new platform device tree doesn't specify
assigned-clock-parents properties and tegra_asoc_utils_init fails.
You made the PMC/CaR changes before the audio changes, the clk_out_1_mux
won't exist for the audio driver patches.
If you care about bisect-ability of the patches, then the clock and
audio changes need to be done in a single patch. But I don't think that
it's worthwhile.
With single clock, extern1 is the parent for clk_out_1 and with
separate clocks for mux and gate, extern1 is the parent for
clk_out_1_mux.
If we move to single clock now, it need one more additional fallback
implementation in audio driver during parent configuration as
clk_out_1_mux will not be there with single clock change and
old/current
kernel has it as it uses separate clocks for pmc mux and gate.
Why additional fallback? Additional to what?
Also, with single clock for both PMC mux and gate now, new DT should
use
extern1 as parent to CLK_OUT_1 as CLK_OUT_1_MUX will not be there old
PMC dt-bindings has separate clocks for MUX (CLK_OUT_1_MUX) and gate
(CLK_OUT_1)
DT bindings will not be compatible b/w old and new changes if we
move to
Single PMC clock now.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're meaning by the "new changes".
Should we go with same separate clocks to have it compatible to avoid
all this?
The reason we added mclk fallback and also for doing parent
configuration based on presence of assigned-clock-parents property is
to have old dt compatible with new kernel and also to have new dt
compatible with old kernel.
So the point I was mentioning is to have new DT to work with old
kernel, setting extern1 as parent to clk_out_1 (with single pmc clock)
through assigned-clock-parents in DT will fail as old kernel has mux
and gate as separate clocks and parent configuration is for mux clock
(clk_out_1_mux)
Sorry never mind, with old kernel clock driver does all parent
configuration so should be ok. So no additional fallbacks are needed
except to the one we already added.
OK, So its just that changes are slightly more to switch to single clock
compared to using separate clocks as gate clk_ops (which are needed
anyway for blink control) of clock enable and disable can't be used for
clk_out_1 enable/disable and need additional clk_enable and disable
callbacks.
Will make changes to use single clock..
