Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] clk: samsung: exynos4x12: add cpu clock configuration data and instantiate cpu clock

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-07-10T08:30:49Z

On 10.07.2015 00:43, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> With the addition of the new Samsung specific cpu-clock type, the
> arm clock can be represented as a cpu-clock type. Add the CPU clock
> configuration data and instantiate the CPU clock type for Exynos4x12.
>
> Based on the earlier work by Thomas Abraham.
>
> Cc: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>
> Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
> Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org>
> Cc: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos4.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos4.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos4.c
> index cae2c048..3071260 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos4.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos4.c
> @@ -1396,6 +1396,45 @@ static const struct exynos_cpuclk_cfg_data e4210_armclk_d[] __initconst = {
> { 0 },
> };
>
> +static const struct exynos_cpuclk_cfg_data e4212_armclk_d[] __initconst = {
> + { 1500000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 6, 0, 7, 3), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 6), },
> + { 1400000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 6, 0, 7, 3), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 6), },
> + { 1300000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 5, 0, 7, 3), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 5), },
> + { 1200000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 5, 0, 7, 3), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 5), },
> + { 1100000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 4, 0, 6, 3), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 4), },
> + { 1000000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 4, 0, 5, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 4), },
> + { 900000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 5, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), },
> + { 800000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 5, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), },
> + { 700000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), },
> + { 600000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), },
> + { 500000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), },
> + { 400000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), },
> + { 300000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 2, 0, 4, 2), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), },
> + { 200000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 1, 0, 3, 1), E4210_CPU_DIV1(2, 3), },
> + { 0 },
> +};
> +
> +#define E4412_CPU_DIV1(cores, hpm, copy) \
> + (((cores) << 8) | ((hpm) << 4) | ((copy) << 0))
> +
> +static const struct exynos_cpuclk_cfg_data e4412_armclk_d[] __initconst = {
> + { 1500000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 6, 0, 7, 3), E4412_CPU_DIV1(7, 0, 6), },
> + { 1400000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 6, 0, 7, 3), E4412_CPU_DIV1(6, 0, 6), },
> + { 1300000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 5, 0, 7, 3), E4412_CPU_DIV1(6, 0, 5), },
> + { 1200000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 5, 0, 7, 3), E4412_CPU_DIV1(5, 0, 5), },
> + { 1100000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(2, 1, 4, 0, 6, 3), E4412_CPU_DIV1(5, 0, 4), },
> + { 1000000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 4, 0, 5, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(4, 0, 4), },
> + { 900000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 5, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(4, 0, 3), },
> + { 800000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 5, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(3, 0, 3), },
> + { 700000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(3, 0, 3), },
> + { 600000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(2, 0, 3), },
> + { 500000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(2, 0, 3), },
> + { 400000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 3, 0, 4, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(1, 0, 3), },
> + { 300000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 2, 0, 4, 2), E4412_CPU_DIV1(1, 0, 3), },
> + { 200000, E4210_CPU_DIV0(1, 1, 1, 0, 3, 1), E4412_CPU_DIV1(0, 0, 3), },
> + { 0 },
> +};

Numbers look fine!

> +
> /* register exynos4 clocks */
> static void __init exynos4_clk_init(struct device_node *np,
> enum exynos4_soc soc)
> @@ -1489,6 +1528,17 @@ static void __init exynos4_clk_init(struct device_node *np,
> samsung_clk_register_fixed_factor(ctx,
> exynos4x12_fixed_factor_clks,
> ARRAY_SIZE(exynos4x12_fixed_factor_clks));
> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4412")) {

The driver uses here enum exynos4_soc to differentiate between SoC
(unless I missed some changes). This of_machine_is_compatible() makes
sense but introduces inconsistency. I would prefer sticking to one
convention: always enum or switch everything (before this patch) to
of_compatible.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

> + exynos_register_cpu_clock(ctx, CLK_ARM_CLK, "armclk",
> + mout_core_p4x12[0], mout_core_p4x12[1], 0x14200,
> + e4412_armclk_d, ARRAY_SIZE(e4412_armclk_d),
> + CLK_CPU_NEEDS_DEBUG_ALT_DIV | CLK_CPU_HAS_DIV1);
> + } else {
> + exynos_register_cpu_clock(ctx, CLK_ARM_CLK, "armclk",
> + mout_core_p4x12[0], mout_core_p4x12[1], 0x14200,
> + e4212_armclk_d, ARRAY_SIZE(e4212_armclk_d),
> + CLK_CPU_NEEDS_DEBUG_ALT_DIV | CLK_CPU_HAS_DIV1);
> + }
> }
>
> samsung_clk_register_alias(ctx, exynos4_aliases,
>