Re: [PATCH 1/3] clk: samsung: exynos5433: prepare for adding CPU clocks

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-05-25T08:19:40Z

On 05/24/2016 03:19 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> Open-code samsung_cmu_register_one() calls for CMU_APOLLO and
> CMU_ATLAS setup code as a preparation for adding CPU clocks
> support for Exynos5433.
>
> There should be no functional change resulting from this patch.
>
> Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>
> CC: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5433.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> drivers/clk/samsung/clk.c | 12 ++---
> drivers/clk/samsung/clk.h | 4 ++
> 3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5433.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5433.c
> index 128527b..6dd81ed 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5433.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5433.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>
> #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
> #include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
>
> #include <dt-bindings/clock/exynos5433.h>
>
> @@ -3594,23 +3595,35 @@ static struct samsung_gate_clock apollo_gate_clks[] __initdata = {
> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED | CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
> };
>
> -static struct samsung_cmu_info apollo_cmu_info __initdata = {
> - .pll_clks = apollo_pll_clks,
> - .nr_pll_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(apollo_pll_clks),
> - .mux_clks = apollo_mux_clks,
> - .nr_mux_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(apollo_mux_clks),
> - .div_clks = apollo_div_clks,
> - .nr_div_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(apollo_div_clks),
> - .gate_clks = apollo_gate_clks,
> - .nr_gate_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(apollo_gate_clks),
> - .nr_clk_ids = APOLLO_NR_CLK,
> - .clk_regs = apollo_clk_regs,
> - .nr_clk_regs = ARRAY_SIZE(apollo_clk_regs),
> -};
> -
> static void __init exynos5433_cmu_apollo_init(struct device_node *np)
> {
> - samsung_cmu_register_one(np, &apollo_cmu_info);
> + void __iomem *reg_base;
> + struct samsung_clk_provider *ctx;
> +
> + reg_base = of_iomap(np, 0);
> + if (!reg_base) {
> + panic("%s: failed to map registers\n", __func__);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + ctx = samsung_clk_init(np, reg_base, APOLLO_NR_CLK);
> + if (!ctx) {
> + panic("%s: unable to allocate ctx\n", __func__);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + samsung_clk_register_pll(ctx, apollo_pll_clks,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(apollo_pll_clks), reg_base);
> + samsung_clk_register_mux(ctx, apollo_mux_clks,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(apollo_mux_clks));
> + samsung_clk_register_div(ctx, apollo_div_clks,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(apollo_div_clks));
> + samsung_clk_register_gate(ctx, apollo_gate_clks,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(apollo_gate_clks));
> + samsung_clk_sleep_init(reg_base, apollo_clk_regs,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(apollo_clk_regs));
> +
> + samsung_clk_of_add_provider(np, ctx);
> }
> CLK_OF_DECLARE(exynos5433_cmu_apollo, "samsung,exynos5433-cmu-apollo",
> exynos5433_cmu_apollo_init);
> @@ -3806,23 +3819,35 @@ static struct samsung_gate_clock atlas_gate_clks[] __initdata = {
> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED | CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
> };
>
> -static struct samsung_cmu_info atlas_cmu_info __initdata = {
> - .pll_clks = atlas_pll_clks,
> - .nr_pll_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(atlas_pll_clks),
> - .mux_clks = atlas_mux_clks,
> - .nr_mux_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(atlas_mux_clks),
> - .div_clks = atlas_div_clks,
> - .nr_div_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(atlas_div_clks),
> - .gate_clks = atlas_gate_clks,
> - .nr_gate_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(atlas_gate_clks),
> - .nr_clk_ids = ATLAS_NR_CLK,
> - .clk_regs = atlas_clk_regs,
> - .nr_clk_regs = ARRAY_SIZE(atlas_clk_regs),
> -};
> -
> static void __init exynos5433_cmu_atlas_init(struct device_node *np)
> {
> - samsung_cmu_register_one(np, &atlas_cmu_info);
> + void __iomem *reg_base;
> + struct samsung_clk_provider *ctx;
> +
> + reg_base = of_iomap(np, 0);
> + if (!reg_base) {
> + panic("%s: failed to map registers\n", __func__);
> + return;

Return is useless here.

> + }
> +
> + ctx = samsung_clk_init(np, reg_base, ATLAS_NR_CLK);
> + if (!ctx) {
> + panic("%s: unable to allocate ctx\n", __func__);
> + return;
> + }

This entire if() is useless. The samsung_clk_init() already panics. I
recently tried to make it consistent across our drivers:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg503014.html

Beside that, looks fine.

Best regards,
Krzysztof