[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <690317658.gaTDz3TliP@avalon>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:27:51 +0200
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Cc: takasi-y@....dti.ne.jp, SH-Linux <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
Shinya Kuribayashi <shinya.kuribayashi.px@...esas.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] clk: emev2: Add support for emev2 SMU clocks with DT
Hi Yoshii-san,
Thank you for the patch.
(CC'ing LAMK as a generic CCF question follows)
On Tuesday 01 October 2013 18:15:26 Magnus Damm wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:15 PM, <takasi-y@....dti.ne.jp> wrote:
> > Common clock framework version of emev2 clock support.
> > smu_clkdiv and smu_gclk are handled.
> > So far, reparent is not implemented, and is fixed to index #0.
> > SMU and small numbers of clocks are described in emev2.dtsi.
> >
> > That function and numbers of clocks are equivalent to current
> > sh-clkfwk version. It is just enough to run kzm9d-reference.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Takashi Yoshii <takashi.yoshii.zj@...esas.com>
> > ---
> >
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2.dtsi | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/clk/Makefile | 2 +
> > drivers/clk/shmobile/Makefile | 5 ++
> > drivers/clk/shmobile/clk-emev2.c | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 195 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/clk/shmobile/Makefile
> > create mode 100644 drivers/clk/shmobile/clk-emev2.c
>
> Hi Yoshii-san,
>
> Thanks for your efforts on this. I'm very pleased to see that you describe
> the clock topology using DT.
What is the generally accepted practice when an IP core provides a large
number of clocks, with either one register or one register bit dedicated to
each clock ? Should each clock be described as one DT node, or should the IP
core be described by a single DT node ?
I also see both platforms using CLK_OF_DECLARE and platforms calling a clock
init function provided by drivers/clk/<platform>.c in the SoC setup code in
arch/arm/. What is the preferred practice there ?
> In general I think your patch looks fine, but I have some comment related to
> the multiplatform integration, please see below.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/Makefile b/drivers/clk/Makefile
> > index 7b11106..3e64ac4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/Makefile
> > @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_VT8500) += clk-vt8500.o
> >
> > obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ZYNQ) += zynq/
> > obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA) += tegra/
> > obj-$(CONFIG_PLAT_SAMSUNG) += samsung/
> >
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SHMOBILE) += shmobile/
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI) += shmobile/
>
> Here I believe it is enough that you only use
> CONFIG_ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI. Building common clocks to coexist with the
> old legacy board code does not make any sense IMO. If you think it
> makes sense for some reason, please explain why. =)
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/shmobile/Makefile b/drivers/clk/shmobile/Makefile
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..6a26eb6
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/shmobile/Makefile
> > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK), y)
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_EMEV2) += clk-emev2.o
> > +endif
>
> I don't think you would need the above ifeq/endif wrapper if you only
> used CONFIG_ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI above.
>
> Apart from that it looks good to me. And, yes, I have tested this on
> my KZM9D board together with multiplatform and it works very well!
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists