Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] clk: spacemit: Add clock support for Spacemit K1 SoC

Alex Elder
2025-03-20T22:39:16Z

On 3/11/25 6:19 PM, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 3/6/25 11:57 AM, Haylen Chu wrote:
>> The clock tree of K1 SoC contains three main types of clock hardware
>> (PLL/DDN/MIX) and has control registers split into several multifunction
>> devices: APBS (PLLs), MPMU, APBC and APMU.
>>
>> All register operations are done through regmap to ensure atomiciy
>> between concurrent operations of clock driver and reset,
>> power-domain driver that will be introduced in the future.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Haylen Chu <heylenay@4d2.org>
>
> I'm very glad you have the DT issues resolved now.
>
> I again have lots of comments on the code, and I think I've
> identified a few bugs.  Most of my comments, however, are
> suggesting minor changes for consistency and readability.
>
> I'm going to skip over a lot of "ccu-k1.c" because most of what I
> say applies to the definitions in the header files.

FYI I encountered a problem I mentioned below.

. . .

>> +/* frequency unit Mhz, return pll vco freq */
>> +static unsigned long ccu_pll_get_vco_freq(struct clk_hw *hw)
>> +{
>> +    const struct ccu_pll_rate_tbl *pll_rate_table;
>> +    struct ccu_pll *p = hw_to_ccu_pll(hw);
>> +    struct ccu_common *common = &p->common;
>> +    u32 swcr1, swcr3, size;
>> +    int i;
>> +
>> +    ccu_read(swcr1, common, &swcr1);
>> +    ccu_read(swcr3, common, &swcr3);
>
> You are masking off the EN bit, but you should really be
> using a mask defining which bits are valid instead.  As
> I said earlier:
>
> #define SPACEMIT_PLL_SWCR3_MASK    ~(SPACEMIT_PLL_SWCR3_EN)
>
>> +    swcr3 &= ~PLL_SWCR3_EN;
>
>     swcr3 &= SPACEMIT_PLL_SWCR3_MASK;
>> +
>> +    pll_rate_table = p->pll.rate_tbl;
>> +    size = p->pll.tbl_size;
>> +
>> +    for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
>> +        if (pll_rate_table[i].swcr1 == swcr1 &&
>> +            pll_rate_table[i].swcr3 == swcr3)
>> +            return pll_rate_table[i].rate;
>> +    }
>> +
>
> I have a general question here.  Once you set one of these
> clock rates, it will always use one of the rates defined
> in the table.
>
> But what about initially?  Could the hardware start in a
> state that is not defined by this code?  Do you *set* the
> rate initially?  Should you (at least the first time the
> clock is prepared/enabled)?

When doing some testing today I found that the WARN_ON_ONCE()
got called. I added some information and learned that the
values in hardware of the swcr1 and swcr3 registers were:
swcr1: 0x0050cd61
swcr3: 0x3fe00000
I'm not sure which PLL was being used.

So clearly this can happen. Somehow you need to find a way
to ensure that these registers are initialized to a sane
state (meaning one defined within pll_rate_table[]).

-Alex

>> +    WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>
> Maybe WARN_ONCE(true, "msg");. . .