From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: julien.thierry@arm.com (Julien Thierry) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 15:05:45 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 02/10] clk: qcom: Fix .set_rate to handle alpha PLLs w/wo dynamic update In-Reply-To: <1513081897-31612-3-git-send-email-ilialin@codeaurora.org> References: <1513081897-31612-1-git-send-email-ilialin@codeaurora.org> <1513081897-31612-3-git-send-email-ilialin@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On 12/12/17 12:31, Ilia Lin wrote: > From: Taniya Das > > From: Taniya Das > > Alpha PLLs which do not support dynamic update feature > need to be explicitly disabled before a rate change. > The ones which do support dynamic update do so within a > single vco range, so add a min/max freq check for such > PLLs so they fall in the vco range. > > Signed-off-by: Taniya Das > Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak > Signed-off-by: Ilia Lin > --- > drivers/clk/qcom/clk-alpha-pll.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > drivers/clk/qcom/clk-alpha-pll.h | 5 +++ > 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-alpha-pll.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-alpha-pll.c > index 47a1da3..ecb9e7f 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-alpha-pll.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-alpha-pll.c > @@ -376,19 +376,46 @@ static unsigned long alpha_pll_calc_rate(u64 prate, u32 l, u32 a) > return alpha_pll_calc_rate(prate, l, a); > } > > -static int clk_alpha_pll_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, > - unsigned long prate) > +static int alpha_pll_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, > + unsigned long prate, > + int (*enable)(struct clk_hw *hw), > + void (*disable)(struct clk_hw *hw)) > { > + bool enabled; Some remarks about this. > struct clk_alpha_pll *pll = to_clk_alpha_pll(hw); > const struct pll_vco *vco; > u32 l, off = pll->offset; > u64 a; > > rate = alpha_pll_round_rate(rate, prate, &l, &a); > - vco = alpha_pll_find_vco(pll, rate); > - if (!vco) { > - pr_err("alpha pll not in a valid vco range\n"); > - return -EINVAL; > + enabled = clk_hw_is_enabled(hw); This is not needed unless we go through the 'else' branch. > + > + if (pll->flags & SUPPORTS_DYNAMIC_UPDATE) { > + /* > + * PLLs which support dynamic updates support one single > + * vco range, between min_rate and max_rate supported > + */ > + if (rate < pll->min_rate || rate > pll->max_rate) { > + pr_err("alpha pll rate outside supported min/max range\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + } else { > + /* > + * All alpha PLLs which do not support dynamic update, > + * should be disabled before a vco update. > + */ > + if (enabled) > + disable(hw); > + > + vco = alpha_pll_find_vco(pll, rate); > + if (!vco) { > + pr_err("alpha pll not in a valid vco range\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + regmap_update_bits(pll->clkr.regmap, off + PLL_USER_CTL, > + PLL_VCO_MASK << PLL_VCO_SHIFT, > + vco->val << PLL_VCO_SHIFT); > } > > regmap_write(pll->clkr.regmap, off + PLL_L_VAL, l); > @@ -401,16 +428,29 @@ static int clk_alpha_pll_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, > regmap_write(pll->clkr.regmap, off + PLL_ALPHA_VAL_U, a >> 32); > } > > - regmap_update_bits(pll->clkr.regmap, off + PLL_USER_CTL, > - PLL_VCO_MASK << PLL_VCO_SHIFT, > - vco->val << PLL_VCO_SHIFT); > - > regmap_update_bits(pll->clkr.regmap, off + PLL_USER_CTL, PLL_ALPHA_EN, > PLL_ALPHA_EN); > > + if (!(pll->flags & SUPPORTS_DYNAMIC_UPDATE) && enabled) > + enable(hw); > + This condition is only "did we disable the clock and need to reenable it?". To make it clearer, I'd suggest renaming 'enabled' to something like 'need_reenabling' and the code look like this: static int alpha_pll_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, unsigned long prate, int (*enable)(struct clk_hw *hw), void (*disable)(struct clk_hw *hw)) { bool need_reenabling = false; [...] if(pll->flags & SUPPORTS_DYNAMIC_UPDATE) { [...] } else { if (clk_hw_is_enabled(hw)) { disable(hw); need_reenabling = true; } [...] } [...] if (need_reenabling) enable(hw); } Cheers, -- Julien Thierry