[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Tegra114: Add support for more clock sources for T114 periphs

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 10/15/2013 04:54 PM, Tom Warren wrote:
> Some T114 peripherals can take up to 8 different clock
> sources (parents), including 4 new ones that don't exist
> on previous chips (PLLC2/C3/MEM2/SRC2). Expand clock/pll
> code/tables to support these additional bits/sources.
> 
> Changes were made to some common code. Testing on T30/T20
> showed no changes in periph clock sources/divisors.
> 
> Also, peripheral clock sources that no longer exist on T114
> were removed from the clock_periph_type table (CVE, TVDAC, etc.),
> and periphs that are gone or not needed in early init are
> no longer brought out of reset/enabled (FUSE, IRAMA/B/C/D, etc.).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren@nvidia.com>
> ---
> v2:
> - Fixed an assert test for a divisor value (s/b >0, not >=0)

> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/tegra-common/clock.c b/arch/arm/cpu/tegra-common/clock.c

> @@ -332,7 +343,7 @@ unsigned clock_adjust_periph_pll_div(enum periph_id periph_id,
>  	if (extra_div)
>  		*extra_div = xdiv;
>  
> -	assert(divider >= 0);
> +	assert(divider > 0);
>  	if (adjust_periph_pll(periph_id, source, mux_bits, divider))
>  		return -1U;
>  	debug("periph %d, rate=%d, reg=%p = %x\n", periph_id, rate,

(For context, I'm working on applying the review feedback to this patch
myself, so save Tom some time)

I think that's the wrong assert to change.

When I pointed out this issue in V1 of the patch, the problem was inside
function clock_periph_enable(). However, that function isn't actually
used anywhere, and was dropped from V2 of the patch.

So, unless you tell me otherwise, I think I'll drop the change I quoted
above from this patch, since it doesn't seem right.