lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] clk: qcom: gcc: Add global clock controller driver for QCS404
Hi Tanya,

On 06-10-18, 23:19, Taniya Das wrote:

> > > > +static struct clk_branch gcc_pwm1_xo512_clk = {
> > > > + .halt_reg = 0x49004,
> > > > + .halt_check = BRANCH_HALT,
> > > > + .clkr = {
> > > > + .enable_reg = 0x49004,
> > > > + .enable_mask = BIT(0),
> > > > + .hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
> > > > + .name = "gcc_pwm1_xo512_clk",
> > > > + .ops = &clk_branch2_ops,
> > >
> > > Do these pwm clks have a parent clk of the XO?
> >
> > Yes they do
>
> We do not need to specify the parent here.

Any specific reason for that?

>
> > > > + [GCC_USB_HS_PHY_CFG_AHB_CLK] = &gcc_usb_hs_phy_cfg_ahb_clk.clkr,
> > > > + [GCC_USB_HS_SYSTEM_CLK] = &gcc_usb_hs_system_clk.clkr,
> > > > + [GFX3D_CLK_SRC] = &gfx3d_clk_src.clkr,
> > > > + [GP1_CLK_SRC] = &gp1_clk_src.clkr,
> > >
> > > Why are some of these missing GCC_ prefix?
> >
> > will add..
> >
>
> These clocks in HW plans do not have GCC prefixed, so it better to leave
> them as they are represented in the HW.

That's right but I think Stephan wants this namespaced properly which IMO
makes sense. Btw looking at other examples I saw that drivers are using
GCC_ tag even if HW representation does not have that

> > > > +static int gcc_qcs404_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct regmap *regmap;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = qcom_cc_register_board_clk(&pdev->dev,
> > > > + "xo_board", "cxo", 19200000);
> > >
> > > You shouldn't need to do this. This function is for transitioning DT
> > > that doesn't have the board clk in DT to something the driver wants to
> > > use, in this case "cxo". So you can either register a fixed factor 1/1
> > > clk to do the translation between board and cxo names, or use xo_board
> > > as the parent of things that can take crystal.
> >
> > Okay will modify this. If I go about using xo_board as parent, I would
> > need to register that right? FWIW I see the same thing done in gcc-msm8916
>
> As Stephen suggested it should be defined in DT till we use the
> clk-smd-rpm.c.

OK will check this

> > > > +#define GCC_GENI_IR_BCR 0
> > > > +#define GCC_USB_HS_BCR 1
> > > > +#define GCC_USB2_HS_PHY_ONLY_BCR 2
> > > > +#define GCC_QUSB2_PHY_BCR 3
> > > > +#define GCC_USB_HS_PHY_CFG_AHB_BCR 4
> > > > +#define GCC_USB2A_PHY_BCR 5
> > > > +#define GCC_USB3_PHY_BCR 6
> > > > +#define GCC_USB_30_BCR 7
> > > > +#define GCC_USB3PHY_PHY_BCR 8
> > > > +#define GCC_PCIE_0_BCR 9
> > > > +#define GCC_PCIE_0_PHY_BCR 10
> > > > +#define GCC_PCIE_0_LINK_DOWN_BCR 11
> > > > +#define GCC_PCIEPHY_0_PHY_BCR 12
> > > > +#define GCC_EMAC_BCR 13
> > >
> > > No GDSCs? Ok.
> >
> > Downstream doesn't seem to have one, will recheck specs.
> >
>
> Downstream uses different way to handle GDSC, there are 2 GDSCs which have
> to be added 1 for MDSS and 1 OXILI_GX.

Okay will check and add

--
~Vinod

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-07 15:28    [W:0.074 / U:5.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site