lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 12/44] clk: davinci: Add platform information for TI DA850 PSC
From
Date
On 01/16/2018 08:00 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Monday 08 January 2018 07:47 AM, David Lechner wrote:
>> +void __init da850_psc_clk_init(void __iomem *psc0, void __iomem *psc1)
>> +{
>> + struct clk_onecell_data *clk_data;
>> +
>> + clk_data = davinci_psc_register_clocks(psc0, da850_psc0_info, 16);
>> + if (!clk_data)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[3], NULL, "ti-aemif");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[3], "aemif", "davinci-nand.0");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[4], NULL, "spi_davinci.0");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[5], NULL, "da830-mmc.0");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[9], NULL, "serial8250.0");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[14], "arm", NULL);
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[15], NULL, "davinci-rproc.0");
>> +
>> + clk_free_onecell_data(clk_data);
>> +
>> + clk_data = davinci_psc_register_clocks(psc1, da850_psc1_info, 32);
>> + if (!clk_data)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[1], "usb20_psc_clk", NULL);
>
> Is this con_id really needed now? Searching for "usb20_psc_clk" in your
> tree results in only this one hit.

Yes, this is left over from previous attempts.

>
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[1], NULL, "musb-da8xx");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[1], NULL, "cppi41-dmaengine");
>
> I guess multiple dev_id matches like these are another hurdle in moving
> them to davinci_psc_clk_info[] table? If its too cumbersome to keep
> multiple entries in the table, they can be handled as an exception at
> the end of processing the table? Still they are not the norm so I hope
> the normal case will still benefit.

Right, as I mentioned in the reply to the previous patch, instead of
assigning a con_id and dev_id to each clock, we would need to assign
an array with a list of clocks. I think that would work better than
trying to handle the extras as an exception since there, on average,
about 5 per SoC.

>
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[2], NULL, "ohci-da8xx");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[3], "gpio", NULL);
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[5], NULL, "davinci_emac.1");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[5], "fck", "davinci_mdio.0");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[7], NULL, "davinci-mcasp.0");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[8], "fck", "ahci_da850");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[9], NULL, "vpif");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[10], NULL, "spi_davinci.1");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[11], NULL, "i2c_davinci.2");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[12], NULL, "serial8250.1");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[13], NULL, "serial8250.2");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[14], NULL, "davinci-mcbsp.0");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[15], NULL, "davinci-mcbsp.1");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[16], "fck", "da8xx_lcdc.0");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[17], "fck", "ehrpwm.0");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[17], "fck", "ehrpwm.1");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[18], NULL, "da830-mmc.1");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[20], "fck", "ecap.0");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[20], "fck", "ecap.1");
>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[20], "fck", "ecap.2");
>> +
>> + clk_free_onecell_data(clk_data);
>> +}
>
> Thanks,
> Sekhar
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-16 18:22    [W:0.135 / U:5.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site