From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:33:27 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 10/10] clk: zx: add zx296702 clock support In-Reply-To: <1426333785-3952-11-git-send-email-jun.nie@linaro.org> References: <1426333785-3952-1-git-send-email-jun.nie@linaro.org> <1426333785-3952-11-git-send-email-jun.nie@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20150316113327.GH8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 07:49:45PM +0800, Jun Nie wrote: > +static int hw_to_idx(struct clk_zx_pll *zx_pll) > +{ > + const struct zx_pll_config *config = zx_pll->lookup_table; > + u32 hw_cfg0, hw_cfg1; > + unsigned long flags = 0; > + int i; > + > + if (zx_pll->lock) > + spin_lock_irqsave(zx_pll->lock, flags); > + > + hw_cfg0 = readl(zx_pll->reg_base); > + hw_cfg1 = readl(zx_pll->reg_base + 4); > + > + if (zx_pll->lock) > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(zx_pll->lock, flags); > + > + /* For matching the value in lookup table */ > + hw_cfg0 &= ~BIT(30); /* clear lock bit */ > + hw_cfg0 |= BIT(31); /* set PD bit */ Use definitions for these bits rather than BIT(n) and a comment. > +static int zx_pll_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, > + unsigned long parent_rate) > +{ > + /* Assume current cpu is not running on current PLL */ > + struct clk_zx_pll *zx_pll = to_clk_zx_pll(hw); > + const struct zx_pll_config *config; > + unsigned long flags = 0; > + int idx; > + u32 reg; > + > + idx = rate_to_idx(zx_pll, rate); > + config = &zx_pll->lookup_table[idx]; > + > + if (zx_pll->lock) > + spin_lock_irqsave(zx_pll->lock, flags); Is this code ever safe without having a lock to take? > + > + writel(config->cfg0, zx_pll->reg_base); > + writel(config->cfg1, zx_pll->reg_base + 4); Use a definition for this +4 (and also for the first register too.) > + reg = readl(zx_pll->reg_base); > + reg &= ~BIT(31); > + writel(reg, zx_pll->reg_base); You've only just written zx_pll->reg_base - why do you need to read it back? Wouldn't this be better (and in any case, using relaxed accessors is probably a good idea): writel_relaxed(config->cfg0, zx_pll->reg_base); writel_relaxed(config->cfg1, zx_pll->reg_base + 4); writel_relaxed(config->cfg0 & ~ZX_PLL_PD, zx_pll->reg_base); Looks nicer, doesn't it? In any case, why should setting the rate enable the PLL? I notice you use the PD bit below in the enable/disable functions, so this seems rather silly - it looks like it should be preserved, and then the wait for the PLL to lock (below) should be conditional on the PLL being enabled. > + while (!(readl(zx_pll->reg_base) & BIT(30))) > + cpu_relax(); What if the bit never sets? You can probably use readl_relaxed() here. > + > + if (zx_pll->lock) > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(zx_pll->lock, flags); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int zx_pll_enable(struct clk_hw *hw) > +{ > + struct clk_zx_pll *zx_pll = to_clk_zx_pll(hw); > + unsigned long flags = 0; > + u32 reg; > + > + if (zx_pll->lock) > + spin_lock_irqsave(zx_pll->lock, flags); > + > + reg = readl(zx_pll->reg_base); > + writel(reg & ~BIT(31), zx_pll->reg_base); > + while (!(readl(zx_pll->reg_base) & BIT(30))) > + cpu_relax(); What if the bit never sets? > + > + if (zx_pll->lock) > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(zx_pll->lock, flags); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static void zx_pll_disable(struct clk_hw *hw) > +{ > + struct clk_zx_pll *zx_pll = to_clk_zx_pll(hw); > + unsigned long flags = 0; > + u32 reg; > + > + if (zx_pll->lock) > + spin_lock_irqsave(zx_pll->lock, flags); > + > + reg = readl(zx_pll->reg_base); > + writel(reg | BIT(31), zx_pll->reg_base); > + > + if (zx_pll->lock) > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(zx_pll->lock, flags); > +} > + > +static int zx_pll_is_enabled(struct clk_hw *hw) > +{ > + struct clk_zx_pll *zx_pll = to_clk_zx_pll(hw); > + unsigned long flags = 0; > + u32 reg; > + > + if (zx_pll->lock) > + spin_lock_irqsave(zx_pll->lock, flags); > + > + reg = readl(zx_pll->reg_base); > + > + if (zx_pll->lock) > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(zx_pll->lock, flags); You don't need locking to read from a single register. > + > + return !(reg & BIT(31)); > +} > + > +static const struct clk_ops zx_pll_ops = { > + .recalc_rate = zx_pll_recalc_rate, > + .round_rate = zx_pll_round_rate, > + .set_rate = zx_pll_set_rate, > + .enable = zx_pll_enable, > + .disable = zx_pll_disable, > + .is_enabled = zx_pll_is_enabled, > +}; > + > +struct clk *clk_register_zx_pll(const char *name, const char *parent_name, > + unsigned long flags, void __iomem *reg_base, > + const struct zx_pll_config *lookup_table, int count, spinlock_t *lock) > +{ > + struct clk_zx_pll *zx_pll; > + struct clk *clk; > + struct clk_init_data init; > + > + zx_pll = kzalloc(sizeof(*zx_pll), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!zx_pll) > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > + > + init.name = name; > + init.ops = &zx_pll_ops; > + init.flags = flags; > + init.parent_names = (parent_name ? &parent_name : NULL); > + init.num_parents = (parent_name ? 1 : 0); > + > + zx_pll->reg_base = reg_base; > + zx_pll->lookup_table = lookup_table; > + zx_pll->count = count; > + zx_pll->lock = lock; As mentioned above, I think this is unsafe if lock is NULL. You probably want to subsitute a lock specific to the PLL if none was provided. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.