Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM OMAP2+ GPMC: always program GPMCFCLKDIVIDER

[Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com>]

On 17/02/15 16:06, Robert Abel wrote:
> Hi Roger,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> wrote:
>> nobody stops the DT binding from specifying a large enough "gpmc,wait-monitoring-ns" value.
>> The driver must use that to scale the GPMC_CLK if it doesn't fit in the GPMC_FCLK.
>> This feature can come separately though. So for now I was suggesting to set the divisor to 1.
>> [...]
>> AFAIK "gpmc,sync-clk-ps" is not specified for asynchronous devices so it defaults to 0
>> in the driver.
> 
> As you have rightly pointed out, sync-clk-ps defaults to 0, i.e.
> divider 1. My solution would work for people /now/ with different
> gpmc,wait-monitoring-ns requirements. Of course, in general you're
> right, the driver could compute that on its own. However, this
> influences sampling behavior of the GPMC, which is somewhat strange
> anyway. Since I lack a proper test setup and time to experiment with
> the GPMC, I'd compromise on leaving sync-clk-ps default to 0, divider
> defaults to 1. If somebody feels up to implementing driver-side
> GPMC_CLK scaling, they might as well nix the dependency at that point
> in time. Right now, keeping the dependency seems more useful to users
> than killing it right away.

one more thing to note is that just specifying sync-clk-ps in DT is not enough for
asynchronous devices.

The driver doesn't set gpmc_t->sync_clk if "gpmc,sync-read" or "gpmc,sync-write"
was not set in the DT, which would be the case for asynchronous devices.

> 
>> What I'm stressing on is that there shouldn't be any dependency on "gpmc,sync-clk-ps" for
>> asynchronous devices. It also becomes easier to specify the wait-monitoring-ns as we don't need
>> to cross reference with "sync-clk-ps".
> 
> As an aside: There shouldn't be a dependency on the FCLK for
> synchronous accesses either. The GPMC driver is in a somewhat terrible
> state that synchronous protocols have to specify in ns, which get
> scaled by the startup FCLK period... So this wrongful dependency
> doesn't make my top ten, especially since it right now would fit a use
> case.

What is your proposal to make things better? And what is your use case that doesn't
work with existing setup?

cheers,
-roger