All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Turquette <mturquette@ti.com>
To: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@linaro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com,
	t.figa@samsung.com, sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] clk: samsung: add common clock framework support for Samsung platforms
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:30:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121030163012.18780.19304@nucleus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1349629855-4962-2-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org>

Hi Thomas,

Quoting Thomas Abraham (2012-10-07 10:10:51)
> +/* determine the output clock speed of the pll */
> +static unsigned long samsung_pll_clock_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> +                               unsigned long parent_rate)
> +{
> +       struct samsung_pll_clock *clk_pll = to_clk_pll(hw);
> +
> +       if (clk_pll->get_rate)
> +               return to_clk_pll(hw)->get_rate(parent_rate);

Why the extra indirection?  Does your samsung_pll_clock abstract several
different PLL implementations (with separate clock ops)?  If so, why not
make a unique struct for each PLL type?

> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* round operation not supported */
> +static long samsung_pll_clock_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long drate,
> +                               unsigned long *prate)
> +{
> +       return samsung_pll_clock_recalc_rate(hw, *prate);

Why is round_rate not supported?  How is returning the recalculated rate
the right thing here?

> +/*
> + * Allow platform specific implementations to attach set_rate and get_rate
> + * callbacks for the pll type clock. Typical calling sequence..
> + *
> + * struct clk *clk = clk_get(NULL, "pll-clk-name");
> + * samsung_pll_clk_set_cb(clk, pll_set_rate, pll_get_rate);
> + */
> +void __init samsung_pll_clk_set_cb(struct clk *clk,
> +                       int (*set_rate)(unsigned long rate),
> +                       unsigned long (*get_rate)(unsigned long rate))
> +{
> +       struct samsung_pll_clock *clk_pll;
> +       struct clk_hw *hw = __clk_get_hw(clk);
> +
> +       clk_pll = to_clk_pll(hw);
> +       clk_pll->set_rate = set_rate;
> +       clk_pll->get_rate = get_rate;
> +}

This answers my questions above having different PLL types.  Why not
just make seprate clk_hw structs for each PLL type instead of the extra
layer of abstraction + runtime assignment of clk ops?

Regards,
Mike

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: mturquette@ti.com (Mike Turquette)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/5] clk: samsung: add common clock framework support for Samsung platforms
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:30:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121030163012.18780.19304@nucleus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1349629855-4962-2-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org>

Hi Thomas,

Quoting Thomas Abraham (2012-10-07 10:10:51)
> +/* determine the output clock speed of the pll */
> +static unsigned long samsung_pll_clock_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> +                               unsigned long parent_rate)
> +{
> +       struct samsung_pll_clock *clk_pll = to_clk_pll(hw);
> +
> +       if (clk_pll->get_rate)
> +               return to_clk_pll(hw)->get_rate(parent_rate);

Why the extra indirection?  Does your samsung_pll_clock abstract several
different PLL implementations (with separate clock ops)?  If so, why not
make a unique struct for each PLL type?

> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* round operation not supported */
> +static long samsung_pll_clock_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long drate,
> +                               unsigned long *prate)
> +{
> +       return samsung_pll_clock_recalc_rate(hw, *prate);

Why is round_rate not supported?  How is returning the recalculated rate
the right thing here?

> +/*
> + * Allow platform specific implementations to attach set_rate and get_rate
> + * callbacks for the pll type clock. Typical calling sequence..
> + *
> + * struct clk *clk = clk_get(NULL, "pll-clk-name");
> + * samsung_pll_clk_set_cb(clk, pll_set_rate, pll_get_rate);
> + */
> +void __init samsung_pll_clk_set_cb(struct clk *clk,
> +                       int (*set_rate)(unsigned long rate),
> +                       unsigned long (*get_rate)(unsigned long rate))
> +{
> +       struct samsung_pll_clock *clk_pll;
> +       struct clk_hw *hw = __clk_get_hw(clk);
> +
> +       clk_pll = to_clk_pll(hw);
> +       clk_pll->set_rate = set_rate;
> +       clk_pll->get_rate = get_rate;
> +}

This answers my questions above having different PLL types.  Why not
just make seprate clk_hw structs for each PLL type instead of the extra
layer of abstraction + runtime assignment of clk ops?

Regards,
Mike

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-10-30 16:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-10-07 17:10 [PATCH v2 0/5] clk: exynos4: migrate to common clock framework Thomas Abraham
2012-10-07 17:10 ` Thomas Abraham
2012-10-07 17:10 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] clk: samsung: add common clock framework support for Samsung platforms Thomas Abraham
2012-10-07 17:10   ` Thomas Abraham
2012-10-22 15:55   ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2012-10-22 15:55     ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2012-10-29 10:09     ` Thomas Abraham
2012-10-29 10:09       ` Thomas Abraham
2012-10-30 23:10       ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2012-10-30 23:10         ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2012-10-30 23:32         ` Tomasz Figa
2012-10-30 23:32           ` Tomasz Figa
2012-11-05  7:41           ` Thomas Abraham
2012-11-05  7:41             ` Thomas Abraham
2012-11-05  7:36         ` Thomas Abraham
2012-11-05  7:36           ` Thomas Abraham
2012-10-30 16:30   ` Mike Turquette [this message]
2012-10-30 16:30     ` Mike Turquette
2012-11-05  7:22     ` Thomas Abraham
2012-11-05  7:22       ` Thomas Abraham
2012-10-07 17:10 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] clk: exynos4: register clocks using common clock framework Thomas Abraham
2012-10-07 17:10   ` Thomas Abraham
2012-10-08  7:54   ` Tomasz Figa
2012-10-08  7:54     ` Tomasz Figa
2012-11-14  5:14   ` Kukjin Kim
2012-11-14  5:14     ` Kukjin Kim
2012-10-07 17:10 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] ARM: dts: Add Exynos4210 clock nodes Thomas Abraham
2012-10-07 17:10   ` Thomas Abraham
2012-10-07 17:10 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] ARM: dts: list the clock providers for serial ports Thomas Abraham
2012-10-07 17:10   ` Thomas Abraham
2012-10-07 17:10 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] ARM: Exynos4: Migrate clock support to common clock framework Thomas Abraham
2012-10-07 17:10   ` Thomas Abraham
2012-11-14  5:25   ` Kukjin Kim
2012-11-14  5:25     ` Kukjin Kim
2012-11-14  5:26   ` Kukjin Kim
2012-11-14  5:26     ` Kukjin Kim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20121030163012.18780.19304@nucleus \
    --to=mturquette@ti.com \
    --cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=kgene.kim@samsung.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com \
    --cc=t.figa@samsung.com \
    --cc=thomas.abraham@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.