From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mturquette@linaro.org (Mike Turquette)
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:44:24 -0700
Subject: [RFC] clk: add flags to distinguish xtal clocks
In-Reply-To: <1375105842.20048.18.camel@cumari.coelho.fi>
References: <1372971912-10877-1-git-send-email-coelho@ti.com>
 <20130704222538.10823.2559@quantum>
 <1372977465.21065.136.camel@cumari.coelho.fi>
 <20130704231953.10823.94331@quantum>
 <1373010853.21065.159.camel@cumari.coelho.fi>
 <1375105842.20048.18.camel@cumari.coelho.fi>
Message-ID: <20131007074424.7445.52119@quantum>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Quoting Luciano Coelho (2013-07-29 06:50:42)
> Hi Mike,
> 
> On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 10:54 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 16:19 -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > > Quoting Luciano Coelho (2013-07-04 15:37:45)
> > > > On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 15:25 -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > > > > Or is it the same clock input and basically the problem is that you need
> > > > > to know what kind of waveform to expect (e.g. square versus sine)?
> > > > 
> > > > It's the same clock input in the chip's perspective.  One clock input
> > > > that can be any of the combinations I mentioned above.  Again, I'm not
> > > > familiar with clocks, so I guess the square vs. sine explanation is
> > > > plausible.  What I could see in the firmware is that it handles the
> > > > clocks differently if they're xtal or not.
> > > 
> > > OMAP has a similar thing where sys_clkin (the fast reference clock for
> > > the chip) can be 19.2, 26, 38.4, etc. This is easy to handle since only
> > > the rates matter.
> > 
> > Right, this part is easy and I already have the code for that.  What I'm
> > missing is a way to pass this XTAL flag to the chip.
> > 
> > 
> > > In your case you need some extra metadata to know what to do. I'm really
> > > not sure if CLK_IS_TYPE_XTAL is the most useful form this metadata can
> > > take. It would be best to know if the waveform is what you really need
> > > to know, or perhaps something else. For instance you might be affected
> > > by some clock signal stabilization time. Can you talk to your hardware
> > > guys and figure it out? I'd rather model the actual needs instead of
> > > just tossing a flag in there.
> > 
> > I get your point.  I have tried to investigate how this flag is used by
> > the firmware and I could see that it is used to set different "buffer
> > gains" and "delays" when waking up (I guess this means when the clock is
> > starting, so probably related to stabilization time).  They specify two
> > "modes", "boost" and "normal" and use different delay values for each.
> 
> I tried but I couldn't find any more information on how exactly this
> works.  But since this change is really simple and there seems to be
> other people who need the same information, couldn't we add it as is and
> try to figure out more specific information about the clocks later on?
> 
> Even if XTAL is not that useful if we know the other details, at least
> it wouldn't hurt to have the flag there anyway.

Luca,

By any chance did you come to a different solution for this problem? I
can take the patch, but I do not feel like we're solving the right
problem the right way.

If not I will take it for 3.13.

Regards,
Mike

> 
> --
> Cheers,
> Luca.