[RFC 05/24] ARM: omap: clk: Nuke plat clock.c & clock.h if CONFIG_COMMON_CLK

[rnayak@ti.com (Rajendra Nayak)]

>> +/* struct clksel_rate.flags possibilities */
>> +#define RATE_IN_242X		(1<<  0)
>> +#define RATE_IN_243X		(1<<  1)
>> +#define RATE_IN_3430ES1		(1<<  2)	/* 3430ES1 rates only */
>> +#define RATE_IN_3430ES2PLUS	(1<<  3)	/* 3430 ES>= 2 rates only */
>> +#define RATE_IN_36XX		(1<<  4)
>> +#define RATE_IN_4430		(1<<  5)
>> +#define RATE_IN_TI816X		(1<<  6)
>> +#define RATE_IN_4460		(1<<  7)
>> +#define RATE_IN_AM33XX		(1<<  8)
>> +#define RATE_IN_TI814X		(1<<  9)
>> +
>> +#define RATE_IN_24XX		(RATE_IN_242X | RATE_IN_243X)
>> +#define RATE_IN_34XX		(RATE_IN_3430ES1 | RATE_IN_3430ES2PLUS)
>> +#define RATE_IN_3XXX		(RATE_IN_34XX | RATE_IN_36XX)
>> +#define RATE_IN_44XX		(RATE_IN_4430 | RATE_IN_4460)
>> +
>> +/* RATE_IN_3430ES2PLUS_36XX includes 34xx/35xx with ES>=2, and all 36xx/37xx */
>> +#define RATE_IN_3430ES2PLUS_36XX	(RATE_IN_3430ES2PLUS | RATE_IN_36XX)
>> +
>> +/* Platform flags for the clkdev-OMAP integration code */
>> +#define CK_242X		(1<<  4)
>> +#define CK_243X		(1<<  5)        /* 243x, 253x */
>> +#define CK_3430ES1	(1<<  6)        /* 34xxES1 only */
>> +#define CK_3430ES2PLUS	(1<<  7)        /* 34xxES2, ES3, non-Sitara 35xx only */
>> +#define CK_3505		(1<<  8)
>> +#define CK_3517		(1<<  9)
>> +#define CK_36XX		(1<<  10)       /* 36xx/37xx-specific clocks */
>> +#define CK_443X		(1<<  11)
>> +#define CK_TI816X	(1<<  12)
>> +#define CK_446X		(1<<  13)
>> +
>> +#define CK_34XX		(CK_3430ES1 | CK_3430ES2PLUS)
>> +#define CK_AM35XX	(CK_3505 | CK_3517)     /* all Sitara AM35xx */
>> +#define CK_3XXX		(CK_34XX | CK_AM35XX | CK_36XX)
>
> I am not sure why we should duplicate these defines in an OMAP2 specific
> header. What not just leave in plat clock.h where we have all the
> RATE_IN_xxx and CK_xxx for all OMAP devices?

These get removed from the file which is used for OMAP1 in a later
patch. Like I said the idea was to separate out whats needed for OMAP1
(using legacy struct clk) and OMAP2+ (using common struct clk) with
both headers residing in respective mach-omap folders. (The RFC I posted
still had the OMAP1 file in plat-omap)

>
>> +/**
>> + * struct clksel_rate - register bitfield values corresponding to clk divisors
>> + * @val: register bitfield value (shifted to bit 0)
>> + * @div: clock divisor corresponding to @val
>> + * @flags: (see "struct clksel_rate.flags possibilities" above)
>> + *
>> + * @val should match the value of a read from struct clk.clksel_reg
>> + * AND'ed with struct clk.clksel_mask, shifted right to bit 0.
>> + *
>> + * @div is the divisor that should be applied to the parent clock's rate
>> + * to produce the current clock's rate.
>> + */
>> +struct clksel_rate {
>> +	u32	val;
>> +	u8	div;
>> +	u8	flags;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct clksel - available parent clocks, and a pointer to their divisors
>> + * @parent: struct clk * to a possible parent clock
>> + * @rates: available divisors for this parent clock
>> + *
>> + * A struct clksel is always associated with one or more struct clks
>> + * and one or more struct clksel_rates.
>> + */
>> +struct clksel {
>> +	struct clk			*parent;
>> +	const struct clksel_rate	*rates;
>> +};
>
> These above clksel structures would be need for omap1 devices so that we
> could use the clock framework to set the parent clock. So why not keep
> in plat clock.h?

We could, but that alone wouldn't be enough if we move OMAP2+ alone to
common clk, it would mean we duplicate the clksel handling code too,
and if we do that, maybe its not that bad to just duplicate a couple
more struct definitions.

>> +
>> +struct clk_hw_omap_ops;
>> +
>> +struct clk_hw_omap {
>> +	struct clk_hw		hw;
>> +	struct list_head	node;
>> +	unsigned long		fixed_rate;
>> +	u8			fixed_div;
>> +	void __iomem		*enable_reg;
>> +	u8			enable_bit;
>> +	u8			flags;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
>> +	void __iomem		*clksel_reg;
>> +	u32			clksel_mask;
>> +	const struct clksel	*clksel;
>> +	struct dpll_data	*dpll_data;
>> +	const char		*clkdm_name;
>> +	struct clockdomain	*clkdm;
>> +#else
>> +	u8			rate_offset;
>> +	u8			src_offset;
>> +#endif
>> +	const struct clk_hw_omap_ops	*ops;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct clk_hw_omap_ops {
>> +	void			(*find_idlest)(struct clk_hw_omap *oclk,
>> +					void __iomem **idlest_reg,
>> +					u8 *idlest_bit, u8 *idlest_val);
>> +	void			(*find_companion)(struct clk_hw_omap *oclk,
>> +					void __iomem **other_reg,
>> +					u8 *other_bit);
>> +	void			(*allow_idle)(struct clk_hw_omap *oclk);
>> +	void			(*deny_idle)(struct clk_hw_omap *oclk);
>> +};
>
> The above clk_hw_xxx would also be needed for omap1 too, right?

Yes, when OMAP1 moves to common clk *and* if we find enough 
commonalities in clk_hw_xxxx accross OMAP1 and OMAP2+.
Else it would make sense to keep them in separate mach folders.

>
> Cheers
> Jon