Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] PCI: qcom: Switch pcie_1_pipe_clk_src after PHY init in SC7280

Bjorn Helgaas
2021-08-25T21:25:58Z

[+cc linux-pci; patches to drivers/pci/ should always be cc'd there]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 07:30:09PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Prasad Malisetty (2021-08-24 01:10:48)
> > On 2021-08-17 22:56, Prasad Malisetty wrote:
> > > On 2021-08-10 09:38, Prasad Malisetty wrote:
> > >> On the SC7280, By default the clock source for pcie_1_pipe is
> > >> TCXO for gdsc enable. But after the PHY is initialized, the clock
> > >> source must be switched to gcc_pcie_1_pipe_clk from TCXO.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Prasad Malisetty <pmaliset@codeaurora.org>
> > >> ---
> > >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > >> b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > >> index 8a7a300..39e3b21 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > >> @@ -166,6 +166,8 @@ struct qcom_pcie_resources_2_7_0 {
> > >> struct regulator_bulk_data supplies[2];
> > >> struct reset_control *pci_reset;
> > >> struct clk *pipe_clk;
> > >> + struct clk *gcc_pcie_1_pipe_clk_src;
> > >> + struct clk *phy_pipe_clk;
> > >> };
> > >>
> > >> union qcom_pcie_resources {
> > >> @@ -1167,6 +1169,16 @@ static int qcom_pcie_get_resources_2_7_0(struct
> > >> qcom_pcie *pcie)
> > >> if (ret < 0)
> > >> return ret;
> > >>
> > >> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "qcom,pcie-sc7280")) {
> > >> + res->gcc_pcie_1_pipe_clk_src = devm_clk_get(dev, "pipe_mux");
> > >> + if (IS_ERR(res->gcc_pcie_1_pipe_clk_src))
> > >> + return PTR_ERR(res->gcc_pcie_1_pipe_clk_src);
> > >> +
> > >> + res->phy_pipe_clk = devm_clk_get(dev, "phy_pipe");
> > >> + if (IS_ERR(res->phy_pipe_clk))
> > >> + return PTR_ERR(res->phy_pipe_clk);
> > >> + }
> > >
> > > I would like to check is there any other better approach instead of
> > > compatible method here as well or is it fine to use compatible method.
>
> I'd prefer the compatible method. If nobody is responding then it's best
> to just resend the patches with the approach you prefer instead of
> waiting for someone to respond to a review comment.

I'm missing some context here, so I'm not exactly sure what your
question is, Prasad, but IMO drivers generally should not need to use
of_device_is_compatible() if they've already called
of_device_get_match_data() (as qcom_pcie_probe() has).

of_device_is_compatible() does basically the same work of looking for
a match in qcom_pcie_match[] that of_device_get_match_data() does, so
it seems pointless to repeat it.

I am a little confused because while [1] adds "qcom,pcie-sc7280" to
qcom,pcie.txt, I don't see a patch that adds it to qcom_pcie_match[].

Bjorn

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/1628568516-24155-2-git-send-email-pmaliset@codeaurora.org/