Re: [RFC] clk: add flags to distinguish xtal clocks

Felipe Balbi
2013-10-08T15:28:32Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3014 bytes --]

Hi,

Fixing Luca's address since he left TI

On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:44:24AM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Luciano Coelho (2013-07-29 06:50:42)
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 10:54 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 16:19 -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > > > Quoting Luciano Coelho (2013-07-04 15:37:45)
> > > > > On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 15:25 -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > > > > > Or is it the same clock input and basically the problem is that you need
> > > > > > to know what kind of waveform to expect (e.g. square versus sine)?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's the same clock input in the chip's perspective. One clock input
> > > > > that can be any of the combinations I mentioned above. Again, I'm not
> > > > > familiar with clocks, so I guess the square vs. sine explanation is
> > > > > plausible. What I could see in the firmware is that it handles the
> > > > > clocks differently if they're xtal or not.
> > > >
> > > > OMAP has a similar thing where sys_clkin (the fast reference clock for
> > > > the chip) can be 19.2, 26, 38.4, etc. This is easy to handle since only
> > > > the rates matter.
> > >
> > > Right, this part is easy and I already have the code for that. What I'm
> > > missing is a way to pass this XTAL flag to the chip.
> > >
> > >
> > > > In your case you need some extra metadata to know what to do. I'm really
> > > > not sure if CLK_IS_TYPE_XTAL is the most useful form this metadata can
> > > > take. It would be best to know if the waveform is what you really need
> > > > to know, or perhaps something else. For instance you might be affected
> > > > by some clock signal stabilization time. Can you talk to your hardware
> > > > guys and figure it out? I'd rather model the actual needs instead of
> > > > just tossing a flag in there.
> > >
> > > I get your point. I have tried to investigate how this flag is used by
> > > the firmware and I could see that it is used to set different "buffer
> > > gains" and "delays" when waking up (I guess this means when the clock is
> > > starting, so probably related to stabilization time). They specify two
> > > "modes", "boost" and "normal" and use different delay values for each.
> >
> > I tried but I couldn't find any more information on how exactly this
> > works. But since this change is really simple and there seems to be
> > other people who need the same information, couldn't we add it as is and
> > try to figure out more specific information about the clocks later on?
> >
> > Even if XTAL is not that useful if we know the other details, at least
> > it wouldn't hurt to have the flag there anyway.
>
> Luca,
>
> By any chance did you come to a different solution for this problem? I
> can take the patch, but I do not feel like we're solving the right
> problem the right way.
>
> If not I will take it for 3.13.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Luca.

--
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]