lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/8] clk: samsung: add new clocks for DMC for Exynos5422 SoC
From
Date
Hi,

When I reviewed this patch, the almost changes are wrong.
Frankly, I can't believe that you had tested and verified it
on real board. Please check my comments.
If I misunderstood, please let me know.

On 19. 1. 31. 오후 5:49, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> This patch provides support for clocks needed for Dynamic Memory Controller
> in Exynos5422 SoC. It adds CDREX base register addresses, new DIV, MUX and
> GATE entries.
>
> CC: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
> CC: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
> CC: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
> CC: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
> CC: Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>
> CC: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> CC: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
> CC: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
> CC: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <l.luba@partner.samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c
> index 34cce3c..3e87421 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c
> @@ -132,6 +132,8 @@
> #define BPLL_LOCK 0x20010
> #define BPLL_CON0 0x20110
> #define SRC_CDREX 0x20200
> +#define GATE_BUS_CDREX0 0x20700
> +#define GATE_BUS_CDREX1 0x20704
> #define DIV_CDREX0 0x20500
> #define DIV_CDREX1 0x20504
> #define KPLL_LOCK 0x28000
> @@ -248,6 +250,8 @@ static const unsigned long exynos5x_clk_regs[] __initconst = {
> DIV_CDREX1,
> SRC_KFC,
> DIV_KFC0,
> + GATE_BUS_CDREX0,
> + GATE_BUS_CDREX1,
> };
>
> static const unsigned long exynos5800_clk_regs[] __initconst = {
> @@ -425,6 +429,10 @@ PNAME(mout_group13_5800_p) = { "dout_osc_div", "mout_sw_aclkfl1_550_cam" };
> PNAME(mout_group14_5800_p) = { "dout_aclk550_cam", "dout_sclk_sw" };
> PNAME(mout_group15_5800_p) = { "dout_osc_div", "mout_sw_aclk550_cam" };
> PNAME(mout_group16_5800_p) = { "dout_osc_div", "mout_mau_epll_clk" };
> +PNAME(mout_mx_mspll_ccore_phy_p) = { "sclk_bpll", "mout_dpll_ctrl",
> + "mout_mpll_ctrl", "ff_dout_spll2",
> + "mout_sclk_spll"};

- mout_dpll_ctrl was not defined. This patch doesn't define it.
- mout_mpll_ctrl was not defined. ditto.
- ff_dout_spll2 was only registered when SOC is EXYNOS5800.
It meant that ff_dout_spll2 was not registered on exynos5422 board.

It is wrong patch. You would have not checked the parent clocks
except for sclk_bpll.

Also,
In the exynos5422 datasheet, MUX_MX_MSPLL_CCORE_PHY_SEL is possible
having the six parents as following:
- sclk_bpll
- sclk_dpll
- sclk_mpll
- sclk_spll2
- sclk_spll
- sclk_epll

Why do you missing last 'sclk_epll'?


> +
>
> /* fixed rate clocks generated outside the soc */
> static struct samsung_fixed_rate_clock
> @@ -450,7 +458,7 @@ static const struct samsung_fixed_factor_clock
> static const struct samsung_fixed_factor_clock
> exynos5800_fixed_factor_clks[] __initconst = {
> FFACTOR(0, "ff_dout_epll2", "mout_sclk_epll", 1, 2, 0),
> - FFACTOR(0, "ff_dout_spll2", "mout_sclk_spll", 1, 2, 0),
> + FFACTOR(CLK_FF_DOUT_SPLL2, "ff_dout_spll2", "mout_sclk_spll", 1, 2, 0),

It doesn't affect the Exynos5422 because exynos5800_fixed_factor_clks[]
is registered when SOC is EXYNOS5800. Exynos5422 board cannot use this clock.

> };
>
> static const struct samsung_mux_clock exynos5800_mux_clks[] __initconst = {
> @@ -472,11 +480,14 @@ static const struct samsung_mux_clock exynos5800_mux_clks[] __initconst = {
> MUX(0, "mout_aclk300_disp1", mout_group5_5800_p, SRC_TOP2, 24, 2),
> MUX(0, "mout_aclk300_gscl", mout_group5_5800_p, SRC_TOP2, 28, 2),
>
> + MUX(CLK_MOUT_MX_MSPLL_CCORE_PHY, "mout_mx_mspll_ccore_phy",
> + mout_mx_mspll_ccore_phy_p, SRC_TOP7, 0, 3),
> +

Why do you modify the exynos5800_mux_clks instead of exynos5420_mux_clks
or exynos5x_mux_clks? In the coverletter this patch is for Exynos5422 board.
Did you test it?

> MUX(CLK_MOUT_MX_MSPLL_CCORE, "mout_mx_mspll_ccore",
> - mout_mx_mspll_ccore_p, SRC_TOP7, 16, 2),
> + mout_mx_mspll_ccore_p, SRC_TOP7, 16, 3),

ditto.

> MUX_F(CLK_MOUT_MAU_EPLL, "mout_mau_epll_clk", mout_mau_epll_clk_5800_p,
> SRC_TOP7, 20, 2, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
> - MUX(0, "sclk_bpll", mout_bpll_p, SRC_TOP7, 24, 1),
> + MUX(CLK_SCLK_BPLL, "sclk_bpll", mout_bpll_p, SRC_TOP7, 24, 1),

ditto.

> MUX(0, "mout_epll2", mout_epll2_5800_p, SRC_TOP7, 28, 1),
>
> MUX(0, "mout_aclk550_cam", mout_group3_5800_p, SRC_TOP8, 16, 3),
> @@ -648,7 +659,7 @@ static const struct samsung_mux_clock exynos5x_mux_clks[] __initconst = {
>
> MUX(0, "mout_sclk_mpll", mout_mpll_p, SRC_TOP6, 0, 1),
> MUX(CLK_MOUT_VPLL, "mout_sclk_vpll", mout_vpll_p, SRC_TOP6, 4, 1),
> - MUX(0, "mout_sclk_spll", mout_spll_p, SRC_TOP6, 8, 1),
> + MUX(CLK_MOUT_SCLK_SPLL, "mout_sclk_spll", mout_spll_p, SRC_TOP6, 8, 1),
> MUX(0, "mout_sclk_ipll", mout_ipll_p, SRC_TOP6, 12, 1),
> MUX(0, "mout_sclk_rpll", mout_rpll_p, SRC_TOP6, 16, 1),
> MUX_F(CLK_MOUT_EPLL, "mout_sclk_epll", mout_epll_p, SRC_TOP6, 20, 1,
> @@ -814,9 +825,13 @@ static const struct samsung_div_clock exynos5x_div_clks[] __initconst = {
> DIV_CDREX0, 16, 3),
> DIV(CLK_DOUT_CCLK_DREX0, "dout_cclk_drex0", "dout_clk2x_phy0",
> DIV_CDREX0, 8, 3),
> + DIV(0, "dout_cclk_drex1", "dout_clk2x_phy0", DIV_CDREX0, 8, 3),

Hmm. CLK_DIV_CDREX0[10:8] of DIV_CDREX0 register was already implemented
by CLK_DOUT_CCLK_DREX0. It is fault.

Also, PCLK_CORE_MEM_RATIO[10:8] of DIV_CDREX1 register was defined as following
in clock-exynos5420.c.
- DIV(CLK_DOUT_PCLK_CORE_MEM, "dout_pclk_core_mem", "mout_mclk_cdrex", DIV_CDREX1, 8, 3),


> DIV(CLK_DOUT_CLK2X_PHY0, "dout_clk2x_phy0", "dout_sclk_cdrex",
> DIV_CDREX0, 3, 5),
>
> + DIV(0, "dout_pclk_drex0", "dout_cclk_drex0", DIV_CDREX0, 28, 3),
> + DIV(0, "dout_pclk_drex1", "dout_cclk_drex1", DIV_CDREX0, 28, 3),

dout_cclk_drex1 is wrong. It is fault.

> +
> DIV(CLK_DOUT_PCLK_CORE_MEM, "dout_pclk_core_mem", "mout_mclk_cdrex",
> DIV_CDREX1, 8, 3),
>
> @@ -1170,6 +1185,31 @@ static const struct samsung_gate_clock exynos5x_gate_clks[] __initconst = {
> GATE_TOP_SCLK_ISP, 12, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
>
> GATE(CLK_G3D, "g3d", "mout_user_aclk_g3d", GATE_IP_G3D, 9, 0, 0),
> +
> + GATE(CLK_CLKM_PHY0, "clkm_phy0", "dout_sclk_cdrex",
> + GATE_BUS_CDREX0, 0, 0, 0),
> + GATE(CLK_CLKM_PHY1, "clkm_phy1", "dout_sclk_cdrex",
> + GATE_BUS_CDREX0, 1, 0, 0),
> + GATE(0, "mx_mspll_ccore_phy", "mout_mx_mspll_ccore_phy",
> + SRC_MASK_TOP7, 0, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> +
> + GATE(CLK_ACLK_PPMU_DREX0_0, "aclk_ppmu_drex0_0", "dout_aclk_cdrex1",
> + GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 15, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> + GATE(CLK_ACLK_PPMU_DREX0_1, "aclk_ppmu_drex0_1", "dout_aclk_cdrex1",
> + GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 14, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> + GATE(CLK_ACLK_PPMU_DREX1_0, "aclk_ppmu_drex1_0", "dout_aclk_cdrex1",
> + GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 13, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> + GATE(CLK_ACLK_PPMU_DREX1_1, "aclk_ppmu_drex1_1", "dout_aclk_cdrex1",
> + GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 12, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> +
> + GATE(CLK_PCLK_PPMU_DREX0_0, "pclk_ppmu_drex0_0", "dout_pclk_cdrex",
> + GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 29, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> + GATE(CLK_PCLK_PPMU_DREX0_1, "pclk_ppmu_drex0_1", "dout_pclk_cdrex",
> + GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 28, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> + GATE(CLK_PCLK_PPMU_DREX1_0, "pclk_ppmu_drex1_0", "dout_pclk_cdrex",
> + GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 27, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> + GATE(CLK_PCLK_PPMU_DREX1_1, "pclk_ppmu_drex1_1", "dout_pclk_cdrex",
> + GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 26, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> };
>
> static const struct samsung_div_clock exynos5x_disp_div_clks[] __initconst = {
>


--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-01 09:08    [W:0.150 / U:6.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site