[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5336918.eLmd7pA3eN@wuerfel>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:16:48 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Markus Mayer <code@...yer.net>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Power Management List <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Broadcom Kernel List <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
Device Tree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: fwd, Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: brcmstb-cpufreq: CPUfreq driver for older Broadcom STB SoCs
[resending my mail, this time with devicetree, linux-clk, and linux-arm-kernel
on cc]
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:32:45 PM CET Markus Mayer wrote:
> From: Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>
>
> This CPUfreq driver provides basic frequency scaling for older Broadcom
> STB SoCs that do not use AVS firmware with DVFS support. There is no
> support for voltage scaling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
This causes multiple build errors in linux-next, please fix asap or
drop the patch again. My feeling is that it's probably too late to
fix it for v4.10, but that's up to Viresh and Rafael of course.
> +#define BRCMSTB_CPUFREQ_PREFIX "brcmstb"
> +#define BRCMSTB_CPUFREQ_NAME BRCMSTB_CPUFREQ_PREFIX "-cpufreq"
> +
> +/* We search for these compatible strings. */
> +#define BRCMSTB_DT_CPU_CLK_CTRL "brcm,brcmstb-cpu-clk-div"
> +#define BRCMSTB_DT_MEMC_DDR "brcm,brcmstb-memc-ddr"
> +#define BRCM_AVS_CPU_DATA "brcm,avs-cpu-data-mem"
> +
> +/* We also need a few clocks in device tree. These are node names. */
> +#define BRCMSTB_CLK_MDIV_CH0 "cpu_mdiv_ch0"
> +#define BRCMSTB_CLK_NDIV_INT "cpu_ndiv_int"
> +#define BRCMSTB_CLK_SW_SCB "sw_scb"
Not critical but the use of those macros obfuscates the DT interfaces
here and made it harder to analyse what was going on.
Also, a couple of them are lacking a DT binding.
> +static int get_frequencies(const struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + unsigned int *vco_freq, unsigned int *cpu_freq,
> + unsigned int *scb_freq)
> +{
> + struct clk *cpu_ndiv_int, *sw_scb;
> +
> + cpu_ndiv_int = __clk_lookup(BRCMSTB_CLK_NDIV_INT);
> + if (!cpu_ndiv_int)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + sw_scb = __clk_lookup(BRCMSTB_CLK_SW_SCB);
> + if (!sw_scb)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + /* return frequencies in kHz */
> + *vco_freq = clk_get_rate(cpu_ndiv_int) / 1000;
> + *cpu_freq = clk_get_rate(policy->clk) / 1000;
> + *scb_freq = clk_get_rate(sw_scb) / 1000;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
You really can't do this:
../drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-cpufreq.c: In function 'get_frequencies':
../drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-cpufreq.c:71:17: error: implicit declaration of function '__clk_lookup';did you mean 'key_lookup'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
cpu_ndiv_int = __clk_lookup(BRCMSTB_CLK_NDIV_INT);
^~~~~~~~~~~~
__clk_lookup is an internal API for the clk providers.
In particular, relying on undocumented internal names of the
clk provider in a device driver is inappropriate.
> +static const struct of_device_id brcmstb_cpufreq_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = BRCMSTB_DT_CPU_CLK_CTRL },
> + { }
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, brcmstb_cpufreq_match);
This is a simple typo, also causing the build to fail:
FATAL: drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-cpufreq: sizeof(struct platform_device_id)=24 is not a modulo of the size of section __mod_platform__<identifier>_device_table=392.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists