[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 03/15] soc: tegra: Add Tegra PMC clock registrations into PMC driver
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 <>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> [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,
>>>>>> 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?

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-12 02:39    [W:0.085 / U:2.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site