Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 16/05/2017 07:47:39: > Von: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > An: Stefan Riedmueller <s.riedmueller@xxxxxxxxx> > Kopie: barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Datum: 16/05/2017 07:47 > Betreff: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: i.MX6ul: Add Clock support for i.MX6ull > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:09:27AM +0200, Stefan Riedmueller wrote: > > From linux-4.10 clock support, only skipped some unnecessary clocks > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Riedmueller <s.riedmueller@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx6ul.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx6ul.c b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx6ul.c > > index f28660d..b0a6bb0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx6ul.c > > +++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx6ul.c > > @@ -66,10 +66,24 @@ static const char *perclk_sels[] = { "ipg", "osc", }; > > static const char *lcdif_sels[] = { "lcdif_podf", "ipp_di0", > "ipp_di1", "ldb_di0", "ldb_di1", }; > > static const char *csi_sels[] = { "osc", "pll2_pfd2_396m", > "pll3_120m", "pll3_pfd1_540m", }; > > static const char *sim_sels[] = { "sim_podf", "ipp_di0", > "ipp_di1", "ldb_di0", "ldb_di1", }; > > +/* epdc_pre_sels, epdc_sels, esai_sels only exists on i.MX6ULL */ > > +static const char *epdc_pre_sels[] = { "pll2_bus", > "pll3_usb_otg", "pll5_video_div", "pll2_pfd0_352m", > "pll2_pfd2_396m", "pll3_pfd2_508m", }; > > +static const char *esai_sels[] = { "pll4_audio_div", > "pll3_pfd2_508m", "pll5_video_div", "pll3_usb_otg", }; > > +static const char *epdc_sels[] = { "epdc_podf", "ipp_di0", > "ipp_di1", "ldb_di0", "ldb_di1", }; > > > > static struct clk *clks[IMX6UL_CLK_END]; > > static struct clk_onecell_data clk_data; > > > > +static inline int clk_on_imx6ul(void) > > +{ > > + return of_machine_is_compatible("fsl,imx6ul"); > > +} > > + > > +static inline int clk_on_imx6ull(void) > > +{ > > + return of_machine_is_compatible("fsl,imx6ull"); > > +} > > Can we use cpu_is_imx6ul(l) instead here? This would allow > us to compile away the code if we one of the two SoCs is > disabled in the config. > > Sascha > Hi Sascha, I tried to use cpu_is_mx6ul, but it seems it is not valid yet in the clk initcall. I found that __imx_cpu_type is set in a postcore initcall but would be already evaluated in cpu_is_mx6ul in the clk initcall which is a core initcall. So cpu_is_mx6ul would not evaluate correctly at this point. I also checked this with an i.MX6 DualLight where the cpu_is_mx6dl is implemented in the ccm init and there it evaluates wrong. In the ccm initcall it evaluates to 0 but later after the postcore initcalls it evaluates correctly to 1. So it seems the cpu_is_mx6ul/dl is not working correctly in the clk initcall. Did I get this correct or did I miss anything? Thanks for your help. Stefan > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | > Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox