linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 04/41] clk: davinci: Add platform information for TI DA850 PLL

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 1 Feb 2018 13:04:03 -0600
From:   David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
To:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/41] clk: davinci: Add platform information for TI
 DA850 PLL

On 02/01/2018 02:58 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Saturday 20 January 2018 10:43 PM, David Lechner wrote:
>> This adds platform-specific declarations for the PLL clocks on TI DA850/
>> OMAP-L138/AM18XX SoCs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
> 
>> +static const struct davinci_pll_clk_info da850_pll1_info __initconst = {
>> +	.name = "pll1",
>> +	.unlock_reg = CFGCHIP(3),
>> +	.unlock_mask = CFGCHIP3_PLL1_MASTER_LOCK,
> 
> I guess this will change with the cfgchip handling discussion last week.

Actually no, there really weren't any changes to the clock drivers because
of this change. Only a small change in mach-davinci.

> 
>> +	.pllm_mask = GENMASK(4, 0),
>> +	.pllm_min = 4,
>> +	.pllm_max = 32,
>> +	.pllout_min_rate = 300000000,
>> +	.pllout_max_rate = 600000000,
>> +	.flags = PLL_HAS_POSTDIV,
>> +};
>> +
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +void __init da850_pll_clk_init(void __iomem *pll0, void __iomem *pll1)
>> +{
>> +	const struct davinci_pll_sysclk_info *info;
>> +
>> +	davinci_pll_clk_register(&da850_pll0_info, "ref_clk", pll0);
>> +
>> +	davinci_pll_auxclk_register("pll0_auxclk", pll0);
>> +
>> +	for (info = da850_pll0_sysclk_info; info->name; info++)
>> +		davinci_pll_sysclk_register(info, pll0);
>> +
>> +	davinci_pll_obsclk_register(&da850_pll0_obsclk_info, pll0);
>> +
>> +	davinci_pll_clk_register(&da850_pll1_info, "oscin", pll1);
> 
> Both PLL0 and PLL1 use the same reference clock. So this should be
> "ref_clk". I dont think we ever need to register a clock called oscin
> along with "ref_clk". There is only one reference clock. It can either
> be obtained using internal oscillator or external oscillator.
> 

As per my response to the previous path, this depends on which both
which SoC and which diagram in the TRM for that SoC you are looking at.
It works either way.