| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:18:17 +0530
From: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>
To: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
naveen krishna <ch.naveen@...sung.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, rdunlap@...radead.org,
Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] iio: adc: exynos_adc: Control special clock of ADC
to support Exynos3250 ADC
Hi Chanwoo,
On 14 April 2014 14:37, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com> wrote:
> This patch control special clock for ADC in Exynos series's FSYS block.
> If special clock of ADC is registerd on clock list of common clk framework,
> Exynos ADC drvier have to control this clock.
>
> Exynos3250/Exynos4/Exynos5 has 'adc' clock as following:
> - 'adc' clock: bus clock for ADC
>
> Exynos3250 has additional 'sclk_tsadc' clock as following:
> - 'sclk_tsadc' clock: special clock for ADC which provide clock to internal ADC
>
> Exynos 4210/4212/4412 and Exynos5250/5420 has not included 'sclk_tsadc' clock
> in FSYS_BLK. But, Exynos3250 based on Cortex-A7 has only included 'sclk_tsadc'
> clock in FSYS_BLK.
>
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
> Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>
> Cc: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi
> Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>
> ---
> drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
> index d25b262..3c99243 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
> @@ -40,8 +40,9 @@
> #include <linux/iio/driver.h>
>
> enum adc_version {
> - ADC_V1,
> - ADC_V2
> + ADC_V1 = 0x1,
> + ADC_V2 = 0x2,
> + ADC_V3 = (ADC_V1 | ADC_V2),
Can't this be simply 0x3? Or is this not really a h/w version?
> };
>
> /* EXYNOS4412/5250 ADC_V1 registers definitions */
> @@ -88,6 +89,7 @@ struct exynos_adc {
> void __iomem *regs;
> void __iomem *enable_reg;
> struct clk *clk;
> + struct clk *sclk;
> unsigned int irq;
> struct regulator *vdd;
>
> @@ -100,6 +102,7 @@ struct exynos_adc {
> static const struct of_device_id exynos_adc_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v1", .data = (void *)ADC_V1 },
> { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v2", .data = (void *)ADC_V2 },
> + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v3", .data = (void *)ADC_V3 },
> {},
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, exynos_adc_match);
> @@ -128,7 +131,7 @@ static int exynos_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>
> /* Select the channel to be used and Trigger conversion */
> - if (info->version == ADC_V2) {
> + if (info->version & ADC_V2) {
So, now this would be applicable for ADC_V3 too, right?
> con2 = readl(ADC_V2_CON2(info->regs));
> con2 &= ~ADC_V2_CON2_ACH_MASK;
> con2 |= ADC_V2_CON2_ACH_SEL(chan->address);
> @@ -165,7 +168,7 @@ static irqreturn_t exynos_adc_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> info->value = readl(ADC_V1_DATX(info->regs)) &
> ADC_DATX_MASK;
> /* clear irq */
> - if (info->version == ADC_V2)
> + if (info->version & ADC_V2)
> writel(1, ADC_V2_INT_ST(info->regs));
> else
> writel(1, ADC_V1_INTCLR(info->regs));
> @@ -226,11 +229,25 @@ static int exynos_adc_remove_devices(struct device *dev, void *c)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void exynos_adc_enable_clock(struct exynos_adc *info, bool enable)
> +{
> + if (enable) {
> + clk_prepare_enable(info->clk);
This could fail. Is it OK without any checks?
> + if (info->version == ADC_V3)
> + clk_prepare_enable(info->sclk);
ditto.
> +
> + } else {
> + if (info->version == ADC_V3)
> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->sclk);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->clk);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void exynos_adc_hw_init(struct exynos_adc *info)
> {
> u32 con1, con2;
>
> - if (info->version == ADC_V2) {
> + if (info->version & ADC_V2) {
> con1 = ADC_V2_CON1_SOFT_RESET;
> writel(con1, ADC_V2_CON1(info->regs));
>
> @@ -300,6 +317,8 @@ static int exynos_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> writel(1, info->enable_reg);
>
> + info->version = exynos_adc_get_version(pdev);
> +
> info->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "adc");
> if (IS_ERR(info->clk)) {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed getting clock, err = %ld\n",
> @@ -308,6 +327,17 @@ static int exynos_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> goto err_irq;
> }
>
> + if (info->version == ADC_V3) {
> + info->sclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "sclk_tsadc");
> + if (IS_ERR(info->sclk)) {
> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev,
> + "failed getting sclk clock, err = %ld\n",
> + PTR_ERR(info->sclk));
> + ret = PTR_ERR(info->sclk);
nit: you could move this line above dev_warn and use 'ret' in the print
statement.
--
With warm regards,
Sachin
--
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