[PATCH v2] ARM: davinci: Add the clock for the CPPI 4.1 DMA engine

[abailon@baylibre.com (Alexandre Bailon)]

On 04/07/2017 06:15 PM, Alexandre Bailon wrote:
>
>
> On 04/07/2017 04:36 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Wednesday 05 April 2017 10:47 PM, Alexandre Bailon wrote:
>>> The CPPI 4.1 DMA is sharing its clock with the USB OTG,
>>> and most of the time, the clock will be enabled by USB.
>>> But during the init of the DMA, USB is not enabled (waiting for DMA),
>>> and then we must enable the clock before doing anything.
>>> Add the clock for the CPPI 4.1 DMA engine.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Bailon <abailon@baylibre.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm/mach-davinci/da830.c | 6 ++++++
>>>   arch/arm/mach-davinci/da850.c | 6 ++++++
>>>   2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/da830.c 
>>> b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/da830.c
>>> index 073c458..bd88470 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/da830.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/da830.c
>>> @@ -304,6 +304,11 @@ static struct clk usb20_clk = {
>>>       .gpsc        = 1,
>>>   };
>>>   +static struct clk cppi41_clk = {
>>> +    .name        = "cppi41",
>>> +    .parent        = &usb20_clk,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>>   static struct clk aemif_clk = {
>>>       .name        = "aemif",
>>>       .parent        = &pll0_sysclk3,
>>> @@ -413,6 +418,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup da830_clks[] = {
>>>       CLK("davinci-mcasp.1",    NULL,        &mcasp1_clk),
>>>       CLK("davinci-mcasp.2",    NULL,        &mcasp2_clk),
>>>       CLK("musb-da8xx",    "usb20",    &usb20_clk),
>>> +    CLK("cppi41-dmaengine",    NULL,        &cppi41_clk),
>> I dont see this device name being used in current linux-next. Is this
>> name accepted ?
> There is here a typo. The name should be cppi41-dma-engine.
> I will fix it.
Actually, it is not a typo. It would have be more logical to name it 
cppi41-dma-engine
(like the driver name) but the name is correct.
The device name is not yet in linux-next as the device is created in 
da8xx driver.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=149080474124498&w=2
>>
>> The patch otherwise looks okay.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sekhar
> Thanks,
> Alexandre