Message-ID: <46532903.ghnH4Us8Zz@avalon>
Date:	Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:08:10 +0100
From:	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To:	Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mturquette@...aro.org,
	mark.rutland@....com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux@....linux.org.uk, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	t.figa@...sung.com, sw0312.kim@...sung.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
	robh+dt@...nel.org, galak@...eaurora.org, grant.likely@...aro.org,
	m.szyprowski@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 2/2] clk: Add handling of clk parent and rate assigned from DT

Hi Sylwester,

On Thursday 27 March 2014 14:57:56 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> On 27/03/14 14:24, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 March 2014 13:16:19 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> >> This function adds a helper function to configure clock parents and rates
> >> as specified in clock-parents, clock-rates DT properties for a consumer
> >> device and a call to it before driver is bound to a device.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>
> >> ---
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> ---
> >> 
> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt   |   26 ++++++
> >>  drivers/base/dd.c                                  |    7 ++
> >>  drivers/clk/Makefile                               |    1 +
> >>  drivers/clk/clk-conf.c                             |   87 ++++++++++++++
> >>  drivers/clk/clk.c                                  |   10 ++-
> >>  include/linux/clk/clk-conf.h                       |   19 +++++
> >>  6 files changed, 149 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>  create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-conf.c
> >>  create mode 100644 include/linux/clk/clk-conf.h
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
> >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt index
> >> 7c52c29..b452f80 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
> >> @@ -115,3 +115,29 @@ clock signal, and a UART.
> >>    ("pll" and "pll-switched").
> >>  * The UART has its baud clock connected the external oscillator and its
> >>    register clock connected to the PLL clock (the "pll-switched" signal)
> >> +
> >> +==Assigned clock parents and rates==
> >> +
> >> +Some platforms require static initial configuration of parts of the
> >> clocks
> >> +controller. Such a configuration can be specified in a clock consumer
> >> node
> >> +through clock-parents and clock-rates DT properties. The former should
> >> contain
> >> +a list of parent clocks in form of phandle and clock specifier pairs,
> >> the
> >> +latter the list of assigned clock frequency values (one cell each).
> >> +
> >> +    uart@...0 {
> >> +        compatible = "fsl,imx-uart";
> >> +        reg = <0xa000 0x1000>;
> >> +        ...
> >> +        clocks = <&clkcon 0>, <&clkcon 3>;
> >> +        clock-names = "baud", "mux";
> >> +
> >> +        clock-parents = <0>, <&pll 1>;
> >> +        clock-rates = <460800>;
> >> +    };
> >> +
> >> +In this example the pll is set as parent of "mux" clock and frequency of
> >> "baud"
> >> +clock is specified as 460800 Hz.
> > 
> > I'm curious, what should happen when two devices have conflicting
> > requirements ? If a different device required the <&clkcon 3> parent to
> > be set to <&pll 2> for instance, who should win ? Shouldn't a warning be
> > printed ?
> 
> In general, the assumption is that the <&clkcon 3> clock would be used only
> by the uart@...0 device.

OK. Removing the problem is a simple way to fix it :-) What about stating this 
explicitly in the documentation then ? Maybe by prefixing your proposed 
explanation below with something like

"Configuring a clock parent and rate through the device node that uses the 
clock is only supported for clocks that have a single user."

> If a clock is shared I'd say it shouldn't be put in a multiple consumer
> device nodes. Instead it should be put in a clock provider node, as I was
> trying to explain in the sentence below.
>
> A warning could be useful, but it could complicate the code. We would need,
> for example, to store information about already configured clocks in a list
> and scan it before actually altering any clock parent or rate.

I'm fine with implementing that later if needed, we can keep the initial 
implementation simple.

> >> +For clocks which are not directly connected to any consumer device
> >> similarly
> >> +clocks, clock-parents and/or clock-rates properties should be specified
> >> in
> >> +assigned-clocks subnode of a clock controller DT node.
> > 
> > It might be that I'm not familiar enough with the clock framework, but
> > this sounds unclear to me. I'm not sure what you mean exactly.
> 
> Sorry about not being precise here, would something like below be more
> clear ?
> 
> "Configuration of common clocks, which affect multiple consumer devices
> can be specified in a dedicated 'assigned-clocks' subnode of a clock
> provider node, e.g.:
> 
>     clkcon {
>         ...
>         #clock-cells = <1>;
> 
>         assigned-clocks {
>             clocks = <&clkcon 16>, <&clkcon 17>;
>             clock-parents = <0>, <&clkcon 1>;
>             clock-rates = <200000>;
>         };
>     };
> "

That's clearer indeed. Can the parents and rates depend on the board, or on 
the SoC only ? We might be getting dangerously close to specifying platform 
configuration instead of describing the hardware. A real example might be nice 
to support the discussion.

> Naturally it's this just an RFC, any critics or suggestions are welcome.:)

-- 
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