From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:41:42 +0100 Subject: [RFC] i.MX clock support In-Reply-To: <20101213150120.GE26210@pengutronix.de> References: <20101213102538.GB6017@pengutronix.de> <20101213150120.GE26210@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20101213154142.GP6017@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 04:01:20PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > Hi Sascha, > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:25:38AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > I am not willing to accept patches for adding i.MX50 support in the mess > > we currently have. These patches offer a way to cleanup the clock support > > and the i.MX50 may be a good test bed for an implementation without > > old cruft to worry about. That said the following patch is not set in > > stone, it's a request for comments and I'm of course open to other > > suggestions, but it's clear that we have to do something. > Full ack. > > > +#define to_clk_divider(clk) (container_of(clk, struct clk_divider, clk)) > > + > > +static unsigned long clk_divider_get_rate(struct clk *clk) > > +{ > > + struct clk_divider *divider = to_clk_divider(clk); > > + > > + unsigned long rate = clk_get_rate(divider->parent); > > + unsigned int div = 1; > > + > > + if (divider->reg) { > > + div = readl(divider->reg) >> divider->shift; > > + div &= (1 << divider->width) - 1; > > + div++; > > + } > > + > > + return rate / div / divider->div * divider->mult; > Maybe you need to spend more effort to exactness e.g. by using > DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST and/or reordering? > (You didn't describe div and mult in struct clk_divider (below), so this > is a bit guess work for me here.) Ok, this needs some work. My original idea was to have seperate fixed dividers and configurable dividers. Then I decided to combine these into one divider. The end result was a mixure of both. We have a struct clk_divider_fixed, which is described but unused. > > > +} > > + > > +static long clk_divider_round_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate) > > +{ > > + struct clk_divider *divider = to_clk_divider(clk); > > + unsigned long parent_rate = clk_get_rate(divider->parent); > > + unsigned int max_div, div; > > + > > + if (rate > parent_rate) > > + return parent_rate; > > + > > + max_div = 1 << divider->width; > > + > > + div = parent_rate / rate; > > + div = max(div, max_div); > > + > > + return parent_rate / div / divider->div * divider->mult; > ditto > > > +} > > + > > +static int clk_divider_set_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate) > > +{ > > + struct clk_divider *divider = to_clk_divider(clk); > > + unsigned long parent_rate = clk_get_rate(divider->parent); > > + unsigned int max_div, div; > > + u32 val; > > + > > + parent_rate /= divider->div; > > + parent_rate *= divider->mult; > > + > > + if (rate > parent_rate) > > + rate = parent_rate; > > + > > + max_div = 1 << divider->width; > > + > > + div = parent_rate / rate; > > + > > + div = max(div, max_div); > > + div--; > > + > > + val = readl(divider->reg); > > + val &= ~(((1 << divider->width) - 1) << divider->shift); > > + val |= div << divider->shift; > > + writel(val, divider->reg); > > + > > + return 0; > You could spend more efforts here, but I think this is OK for now. > > > [...] > > +struct clk_ops clk_multiplexer_ops = { > > + .enable = clk_parent_enable, > > + .disable = clk_parent_disable, > > + .get_rate = clk_parent_get_rate, > > + .round_rate = clk_parent_round_rate, > > + .set_rate = clk_parent_set_rate, > Oh, this might have surprising effects if the parent is "public". > Is this intended? I have no idea what the best way is here. We could remove it and wait if somebody comes up with a good reason to add it again. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |