[PATCH RESEND 1/4] clk: clk-s2mps11: Refactor for including support for other MFD clocks

[PATCH RESEND 1/4] clk: clk-s2mps11: Refactor for including support for other MFD clocks

[Tushar Behera]

The clocks in S2MPS11 and S5M8767 are managed in the same way, baring
a difference in the register offset. It would be better to update
existing S2MPS11 driver to support the clocks in S5M8767, rather than
creating an almost duplicate driver altogether.

Signed-off-by: Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@samsung.com>
CC: Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c |   20 ++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c b/drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c
index 00a3abe..43e25bb 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c
@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ struct s2mps11_clk {
 	struct clk_lookup *lookup;
 	u32 mask;
 	bool enabled;
+	unsigned int reg;
 };
 
 static struct s2mps11_clk *to_s2mps11_clk(struct clk_hw *hw)
@@ -61,7 +62,7 @@ static int s2mps11_clk_prepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
 	int ret;
 
 	ret = regmap_update_bits(s2mps11->iodev->regmap_pmic,
-				S2MPS11_REG_RTC_CTRL,
+				 s2mps11->reg,
 				 s2mps11->mask, s2mps11->mask);
 	if (!ret)
 		s2mps11->enabled = true;
@@ -74,7 +75,7 @@ static void s2mps11_clk_unprepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
 	struct s2mps11_clk *s2mps11 = to_s2mps11_clk(hw);
 	int ret;
 
-	ret = regmap_update_bits(s2mps11->iodev->regmap_pmic, S2MPS11_REG_RTC_CTRL,
+	ret = regmap_update_bits(s2mps11->iodev->regmap_pmic, s2mps11->reg,
 			   s2mps11->mask, ~s2mps11->mask);
 
 	if (!ret)
@@ -155,6 +156,7 @@ static int s2mps11_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	struct sec_pmic_dev *iodev = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
 	struct s2mps11_clk *s2mps11_clks, *s2mps11_clk;
 	struct device_node *clk_np = NULL;
+	unsigned int s2mps11_reg;
 	int i, ret = 0;
 	u32 val;
 
@@ -169,13 +171,23 @@ static int s2mps11_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (IS_ERR(clk_np))
 		return PTR_ERR(clk_np);
 
+	switch(platform_get_device_id(pdev)->driver_data) {
+	case S2MPS11X:
+		s2mps11_reg = S2MPS11_REG_RTC_CTRL;
+		break;
+	default:
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid device type\n");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	};
+
 	for (i = 0; i < S2MPS11_CLKS_NUM; i++, s2mps11_clk++) {
 		s2mps11_clk->iodev = iodev;
 		s2mps11_clk->hw.init = &s2mps11_clks_init[i];
 		s2mps11_clk->mask = 1 << i;
+		s2mps11_clk->reg = s2mps11_reg;
 
 		ret = regmap_read(s2mps11_clk->iodev->regmap_pmic,
-				  S2MPS11_REG_RTC_CTRL, &val);
+				  s2mps11_clk->reg, &val);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			goto err_reg;
 
@@ -241,7 +253,7 @@ static int s2mps11_clk_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 }
 
 static const struct platform_device_id s2mps11_clk_id[] = {
-	{ "s2mps11-clk", 0},
+	{ "s2mps11-clk", S2MPS11X},
 	{ },
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, s2mps11_clk_id);
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH RESEND 1/4] clk: clk-s2mps11: Refactor for including support for other MFD clocks

[Mike Turquette]

Quoting Tushar Behera (2013-12-26 02:18:58)
> The clocks in S2MPS11 and S5M8767 are managed in the same way, baring
> a difference in the register offset. It would be better to update
> existing S2MPS11 driver to support the clocks in S5M8767, rather than
> creating an almost duplicate driver altogether.

Can you rebase patches #1 & #2 onto clk-next? They do not apply cleanly
as-is.

Regards,
Mike

> 
> Signed-off-by: Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@samsung.com>
> CC: Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c |   20 ++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c b/drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c
> index 00a3abe..43e25bb 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-s2mps11.c
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ struct s2mps11_clk {
>         struct clk_lookup *lookup;
>         u32 mask;
>         bool enabled;
> +       unsigned int reg;
>  };
>  
>  static struct s2mps11_clk *to_s2mps11_clk(struct clk_hw *hw)
> @@ -61,7 +62,7 @@ static int s2mps11_clk_prepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
>         int ret;
>  
>         ret = regmap_update_bits(s2mps11->iodev->regmap_pmic,
> -                               S2MPS11_REG_RTC_CTRL,
> +                                s2mps11->reg,
>                                  s2mps11->mask, s2mps11->mask);
>         if (!ret)
>                 s2mps11->enabled = true;
> @@ -74,7 +75,7 @@ static void s2mps11_clk_unprepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
>         struct s2mps11_clk *s2mps11 = to_s2mps11_clk(hw);
>         int ret;
>  
> -       ret = regmap_update_bits(s2mps11->iodev->regmap_pmic, S2MPS11_REG_RTC_CTRL,
> +       ret = regmap_update_bits(s2mps11->iodev->regmap_pmic, s2mps11->reg,
>                            s2mps11->mask, ~s2mps11->mask);
>  
>         if (!ret)
> @@ -155,6 +156,7 @@ static int s2mps11_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>         struct sec_pmic_dev *iodev = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
>         struct s2mps11_clk *s2mps11_clks, *s2mps11_clk;
>         struct device_node *clk_np = NULL;
> +       unsigned int s2mps11_reg;
>         int i, ret = 0;
>         u32 val;
>  
> @@ -169,13 +171,23 @@ static int s2mps11_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>         if (IS_ERR(clk_np))
>                 return PTR_ERR(clk_np);
>  
> +       switch(platform_get_device_id(pdev)->driver_data) {
> +       case S2MPS11X:
> +               s2mps11_reg = S2MPS11_REG_RTC_CTRL;
> +               break;
> +       default:
> +               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid device type\n");
> +               return -EINVAL;
> +       };
> +
>         for (i = 0; i < S2MPS11_CLKS_NUM; i++, s2mps11_clk++) {
>                 s2mps11_clk->iodev = iodev;
>                 s2mps11_clk->hw.init = &s2mps11_clks_init[i];
>                 s2mps11_clk->mask = 1 << i;
> +               s2mps11_clk->reg = s2mps11_reg;
>  
>                 ret = regmap_read(s2mps11_clk->iodev->regmap_pmic,
> -                                 S2MPS11_REG_RTC_CTRL, &val);
> +                                 s2mps11_clk->reg, &val);
>                 if (ret < 0)
>                         goto err_reg;
>  
> @@ -241,7 +253,7 @@ static int s2mps11_clk_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  }
>  
>  static const struct platform_device_id s2mps11_clk_id[] = {
> -       { "s2mps11-clk", 0},
> +       { "s2mps11-clk", S2MPS11X},
>         { },
>  };
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, s2mps11_clk_id);
> -- 
> 1.7.9.5
> 

[PATCH RESEND 1/4] clk: clk-s2mps11: Refactor for including support for other MFD clocks

[Tushar Behera]

On 30 December 2013 03:47, Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org> wrote:
> Quoting Tushar Behera (2013-12-26 02:18:58)
>> The clocks in S2MPS11 and S5M8767 are managed in the same way, baring
>> a difference in the register offset. It would be better to update
>> existing S2MPS11 driver to support the clocks in S5M8767, rather than
>> creating an almost duplicate driver altogether.
>
> Can you rebase patches #1 & #2 onto clk-next? They do not apply cleanly
> as-is.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>

Commit 1b1ccee1e821 "mfd: s2mps11: Fix build after regmap field rename
in sec-core.c" is also touching this file, which is in Mark's tree
right now. If I rebase
this patch on top clk-next, I am getting conflicts when I merge that
with linux-next.
Let me know how you want to handle this.

I am attaching the rebased patches for your reference.
If you want, I will send them again through git-send-email.

-- 
Tushar Behera
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-clk-clk-s2mps11-Refactor-for-including-support-for-o.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2904 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20131230/fbd9b99e/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0002-clk-clk-s2mps11-Add-support-for-clocks-in-S5M8767-MF.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20131230/fbd9b99e/attachment-0001.bin>

[PATCH RESEND 1/4] clk: clk-s2mps11: Refactor for including support for other MFD clocks

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 09:33:50AM +0530, Tushar Behera wrote:

> Commit 1b1ccee1e821 "mfd: s2mps11: Fix build after regmap field rename
> in sec-core.c" is also touching this file, which is in Mark's tree
> right now. If I rebase

It's been in Linus' tree for a while now.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20131231/154498c4/attachment.sig>

[PATCH RESEND 1/4] clk: clk-s2mps11: Refactor for including support for other MFD clocks

[Mike Turquette]

Quoting Mark Brown (2013-12-31 08:09:16)
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 09:33:50AM +0530, Tushar Behera wrote:
> 
> > Commit 1b1ccee1e821 "mfd: s2mps11: Fix build after regmap field rename
> > in sec-core.c" is also touching this file, which is in Mark's tree
> > right now. If I rebase
> 
> It's been in Linus' tree for a while now.

OK, so I merged the two patches into clk-next, then merged clk-next into
next-20131224 and the merge is super trivial to resolve. So I propose
that we just let it get resolved in linux-next the usual way.

Any objections? If not I'll take these two patches into clk-next.

Regards,
Mike

[PATCH RESEND 1/4] clk: clk-s2mps11: Refactor for including support for other MFD clocks

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

Hi,

> 
> Quoting Mark Brown (2013-12-31 08:09:16)
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 09:33:50AM +0530, Tushar Behera wrote:
> > 
> > > Commit 1b1ccee1e821 "mfd: s2mps11: Fix build after regmap field rename
> > > in sec-core.c" is also touching this file, which is in Mark's tree
> > > right now. If I rebase
> > 
> > It's been in Linus' tree for a while now.
> 
> OK, so I merged the two patches into clk-next, then merged clk-next into
> next-20131224 and the merge is super trivial to resolve. So I propose
> that we just let it get resolved in linux-next the usual way.
> 
> Any objections? If not I'll take these two patches into clk-next.

Did you merged these patches into clk-next? Unfortunately I couldn't
find them (clk-next, next).

I am asking because I want to send patches with support for S2MPS14
clock (based on these patches).

Best regards,
Krzysztof