Message-ID: <55660BF2.6000002@freescale.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 May 2015 11:24:50 -0700
From:	York Sun <yorksun@...escale.com>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC:	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	<linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<lee.jones@...aro.org>, <andrey@...hel.com>,
	<sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>, <rabeeh@...id-run.com>
Subject: Re: clock driver



On 05/27/2015 11:15 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:45:32AM -0700, York Sun wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/27/2015 10:30 AM, Michael Turquette wrote:
>>> Quoting York Sun (2015-05-26 17:32:13)
>>>> Michael,
>>>>
>>>> Can you give me some guidance here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 05/26/2015 05:20 PM, York Sun wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/26/2015 03:38 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:12:11PM -0700, York Sun wrote:
>>>>>>> Linux experts,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have rewritten a driver for Silicon Labs SI5338 programmable clock chip. The
>>>>>>> original driver was written by Andrey (CC'ed), but was floatingn outside of the
>>>>>>> kernel. The driver was written to use sysfs as the interface, not the common
>>>>>>> clock framework. I wonder if I have to rewrite the driver following common clock
>>>>>>> framework. One concern is to support a feature to accept ClockBuilder (TM)
>>>>>>> output on sysfs. I don't see sysfs support on common clock framework. Please
>>>>>>> correct me if I am wrong.
>>>
>>> Can you give me a link to some info about ClockBuilder?
>>
>> It is a software provided by Silicon Labs to create configuration. See
>> http://www.silabs.com/products/clocksoscillators/Pages/Timing-Software-Development-Tools.aspx
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not using common clock framework is acceptable, I would like to send a RFC
>>>>>>> patch for review.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> My original driver for si570 was rejected because it didn't support the clock
>>>>>> framework, so you might face an uphill battle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SI provides a document for SI5338 describing how to configure it without
>>>>>> using clockbuilder [1]. Can that be used to implement generic code which
>>>>>> doesn't need clockbuilder ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The driver is capable to handle the user's input and enable the clocks. Removing
>>>>> the support of importing is a step back. At least it is a feature I am using. I
>>>>> believe Andrey also used this feature when the driver was first drafted.
>>>>>
>>>>> That being said, my application relies on setting multiple clock chips on a PCIe
>>>>> device. That means I cannot put the configuration into device tree. There may be
>>>>> a way to fill device tree, but I am not ready to explore yet. Without a sysfs
>>>>> interface, can I change the configuration for each clock?
>>>
>>> CCF does not have any dependency on DeviceTree. Zero. If you don't want
>>> to use DT, then that is great! The ARM community has chosen DT, and the
>>> ARM community by and large uses CCF in Linux. But there is no
>>> requirement to use DT if you want to use CCF.
>>
>> That's good to know.
>>
>>>
>>> Regarding sysfs, I really need to understand what interfaces you want
>>> from sysfs. Can you provide a link to the ClockBuilder(TM) stuff?
>>>
>>> It is certainly possible for you to create sysfs entries in your clock
>>> driver. Depending on what you want to do, there may be no need to
>>> involve the framework in this stuff. Do you think you can keep your
>>> sysfs stuff localized in your driver?
>>
>> I understand that I can create sysfs entries in my driver. I brought it up
>> because I remember seeing your plan to add sysfs interface.
>>
>> If I add sysfs for this driver, it will not be a generic driver.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also found COMMON_CLK is a bool, not tristate. It is only selected by others.
>>>>> Is there a reason for doing so? My current platform (P1022DS) doesn't have
>>>>> CONFIG_COMMON_CLK enabled.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If converting my driver to common clock framework, I need to find a way to
>>>> configure the clocks without recompiling the kernel. I will have about 30 clock
>>>> chips (with different frequency) on multiple PCIe cards.
>>>
>>> Sure. Let's figure out your requirements and decide if we can make CCF
>>> work for you. I think we can.
>>>
>>> I know that the Beagle Bone folks have been looking at modifying DT
>>> blobs and changing them/loading them at run-time. That might be
>>> interesting for your on-the-fly clock configuration.
>>>
>>> If you don't like DT then perhaps you can export your sysfs clock stuff
>>> via your clock driver, instead of the framework?
>>>
>>
>> Like I explained in the other email of this thread, I plan to use the clock
>> driver to initialize clocks on PCIe (FPGA) cards which four chips on each card.
>> The clocks will be set by the host SoC for FPGA to use. Messing with the clocks
>> will not crash host OS. It is required to set the clocks with different
>> frequencies without recompiling/rebooting the host OS.
>>
> 
> Someone suggested earlier that the clocks should be set from the PCIe driver.
> Question here is really if you need to control the clocks from user space.
> Even if you do, the driver for the chip _using_ the clocks would be better
> suited for changing the clock rates than the clock driver itself. This way it
> can ensure that the clock rates are sane for the given use case, and the use
> case is kept out of the clock driver.
> 
>> I wrote a driver for the PCIe card to load FPGA images. To setup the clocks, I
>> rewrote the SI5338 driver and set the desired frequencies using sysfs. This
>> driver has a feature to import/dump the raw configuration data. That's one
>> feature I plan to use, at least for debugging.
>>
> With the above in mind, the idea would be for the PCIe driver to set the clock
> rates.

I am interested in this path. Can you explain a little bit more about setting
the clock rates? I have no experience on CCF.

> 
>> I don't think device tree is the best for my application because I will have
>> about 30 clock chips to program in the complete system. It is easier to use user
>> space application to do so from I2C bus.
>>
> Devicetree is static, so you might have to use devicetree overlays if the
> programming changes at runtime. Not sure why the number of clock chips
> would make that non-feasible, though.

I mean the existence is unknown for many chips. The baseline is I can't use
static data.

> 
> On a side note, we are using devicetree a lot for PCIe devices.

It's tempting. I want to explore this direction at a later phase of my project.
I will appreciate if you can point me to something.

> 
>> Earlier Guenter helped me to comb through the idea and we concluded CCF may not
>> be the best fit for this application. I wonder if CCF is the only way to get
> 
> Well, you did ;-). I think it would be feasible, but you would have to change
> your viewpoint (in respect to how to control the clocks).

Right, I did. I will revisit this after bring up the platform initially, when I
have more knowledge about those clocks. Maybe I should add an interface for my
FPGA driver to request clock rates, instead of setting them from clock driver.
It sounds better.

York



--
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