Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] clk: sophgo: Add SG2042 clock generator driver

[Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4290 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:22:28AM +0800, Chen Wang wrote:

> On 2023/12/9 0:47, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 09:14:32AM +0800, Chen Wang wrote:

> > > +#define ENCODE_PLL_CTRL(fbdiv, p1, p2, refdiv) \
> > > +	(((fbdiv & 0xfff) << 16) | ((p2 & 0x7) << 12) | ((p1 & 0x7) << 8) | (refdiv & 0x3f))
> > IMO this should be a function not a macro.

> Would like to listen why it should be a function instead of a macro? Any
> experiences you can share with me?

Readability. A function, which could be inlined allows you to break this
up and make it easier to read.

> > > +/*
> > > + * Based on input rate/prate/fbdiv/refdiv, look up the postdiv1_2 table
> > > + * to get the closest postdiiv combination.
> > > + * @rate: FOUTPOSTDIV
> > > + * @prate: parent rate, i.e. FREF
> > > + * @fbdiv: FBDIV
> > > + * @refdiv: REFDIV
> > > + * @postdiv1: POSTDIV1, output
> > > + * @postdiv2: POSTDIV2, output
> > > + * See TRM:
> > > + * FOUTPOSTDIV = FREF * FBDIV / REFDIV / (POSTDIV1 * POSTDIV2)
> > > + * So we get following formula to get POSTDIV1 and POSTDIV2:
> > > + * POSTDIV = (prate/REFDIV) x FBDIV/rate
> > > + * above POSTDIV = POSTDIV1*POSTDIV2
> > > + */
> > > +static int __sg2042_pll_get_postdiv_1_2(
> > > +	unsigned long rate,
> > > +	unsigned long prate,
> > > +	unsigned int fbdiv,
> > > +	unsigned int refdiv,
> > > +	unsigned int *postdiv1,
> > > +	unsigned int *postdiv2)
> > This is not the coding style btw.
> Agree, will fix this.
> > > +{
> > > +	int index = 0;
> > > +	int ret = 0;
> > > +	u64 tmp0;
> > > +
> > > +	/* prate/REFDIV and result save to tmp0 */
> > > +	tmp0 = prate;
> > > +	do_div(tmp0, refdiv);
> > > +
> > > +	/* ((prate/REFDIV) x FBDIV) and result save to tmp0 */
> > > +	tmp0 *= fbdiv;
> > > +
> > > +	/* ((prate/REFDIV) x FBDIV)/rate and result save to tmp0 */
> > > +	do_div(tmp0, rate);
> > > +
> > > +	/* tmp0 is POSTDIV1*POSTDIV2, now we calculate div1 and div2 value */
> > > +	if (tmp0 <= 7) {
> > > +		/* (div1 * div2) <= 7, no need to use array search */
> > > +		*postdiv1 = tmp0;
> > > +		*postdiv2 = 1;
> > > +	} else {
> > > +		/* (div1 * div2) > 7, use array search */
> > > +		for (index = 0; index < ARRAY_SIZE(postdiv1_2); index++) {
> > > +			if (tmp0 > postdiv1_2[index][POSTDIV_RESULT_INDEX]) {
> > > +				continue;
> > > +			} else {
> > > +				/* found it */
> > > +				break;
> > > +			}
> > > +		}
> > > +		if (index < ARRAY_SIZE(postdiv1_2)) {
> > > +			*postdiv1 = postdiv1_2[index][1];
> > > +			*postdiv2 = postdiv1_2[index][0];
> > > +		} else {
> > > +			pr_debug("%s can not find in postdiv array!\n", __func__);
> > > +			ret = -EINVAL;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	return ret;
> > > +}
> > Reading this function it makes me wonder if (and I am far from the best
> > person to comment, someone like Stephen is vastly more qualified) you
> > should model this as several "stages", each implemented by the
> > "standard" clocks - like clk_divider etc. The code here is quite
> > complicated IMO as it seems to be trying to implement several stages of
> > division in one go.
> 
> The objective of __sg2042_pll_get_postdiv_1_2() is straightforward: based on
> the formula defined by the TRM, with input rate/prate/fbdiv/refdiv, we can
> get the possiblle combination of POSTDIV1 and POSTDIV2 by looking up the
> table of postdiv1_2. We will later use it to setup the clock register.
> 
> Though the codes looks a bit complicated, but accually it is calculate with
> the formula : POSTDIV = (prate/REFDIV) x FBDIV/rate, I just separate it into
> several steps to make it easy to understand, I have listed the formula in
> the comment on top of the function.

I understand what you are doing, I did something similar myself
previously. My suggestion/question was about using the "standard" types
of clock that the core provides to represent as many of the clocks in
this driver as is feasible.

> > There's quite a lot in the driver and I will admit that I have not read
> > it all my any means (I skimmed from here onwards), but in general my
> > advice would be to try and reuse the generic code as much as possible.
> Agree, I will double check and try to optimize the code in next revision.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]