[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: fix clock setup

[Darius Augulis <augulis.darius@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On 11/22/2010 10:48 AM, Minkyu Kang wrote:
> Dear Darius Augulis,
>
> On 19 November 2010 17:54, Darius Augulis<augulis.darius@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Minkyu Kang<promsoft@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Dear Darius Augulis,
>>>
>>> On 13 November 2010 03:05, Darius Augulis<augulis.darius@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> Fix pll divider values to standard ones described
>>>> in "S3C6410X RISC Microprocessor User's Manual,
>>>> Revision 1.20", p. 3-21.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Darius Augulis<augulis.darius@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   arch/arm/include/asm/arch-s3c64xx/s3c6400.h |   17 ++++++-----------
>>>>   1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hm, no..
>>> Please consider s3c6400.
>>> Those values are fit with s3c6400.
>>
>> does s3c6400 have different clock controller compared to s3c6410?
>> I have only old manual of s3c6400 and it has the same equation for pll
>> clock setting.
>> Please take a look into arch/arm/cpu/arm1176/s3c64xx/speed.c. There
>> are common functions for both CPU's and
>> they work ok. So i guess my patch should not break s3c6400 operation.
>
> According to the TRM...

what does this abbreviation mean?

> Equations are same. but, recommended values are different.

you are wrong. There is table in s3c6400 manual, but it doesn't contain 
recommended values, only examples how to calculate. Please find default 
values in APLL_CON, MPLL_CON and EPLL_CON0 registers. After reset, 
default frequency of APLL/MPLL for both s3c6400 and s3c6410 are 
400MHz/133MHz respectively. But values in table in s3c6400 manual do not 
fit default register values for these frequencies. And recommended 
values in s3c6410 manual do. Therefore I suggest to use values from 
s3c6410 manual.

> Your patch is no guarantee with s3c6400.
> Did you tested with s3c6400?

no. please see next comment below.

>
>> Btw, we don't have any working s3c6400 board in main line and it seems
>> nobody is interested to have one.
>
> We have the SMDK6400.

you are wrong there again. it does not compile at all. for a long time 
enough.

Darius.


>
> Thanks
> Minkyu Kang