[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180924064703.GY4097@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:47:03 +0200
From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
To: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@....com>
Cc: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@....com>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>,
Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, linux-imx@....com,
Abel Vesa <abelvesa@...ux.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/5] clk: imx: add imx composite clock
Hi Abel,
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 03:11:33PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote:
> Since a lot of clocks on imx8 are formed by a mux, gate, predivider and
> divider, the idea here is to combine all of those into one composite clock,
> but we need to deal with both predivider and divider at the same time and
> therefore we add the imx_clk_composite_divider_ops and register the composite
> clock with those.
>
> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@....com>
> Suggested-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
> ---
> drivers/clk/imx/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/clk/imx/clk-composite.c | 156 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/clk/imx/clk.h | 14 ++++
> 3 files changed, 171 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/clk/imx/clk-composite.c
>
> +static int imx_clk_composite_divider_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> + unsigned long rate,
> + unsigned long parent_rate)
> +{
> + struct clk_divider *divider = to_clk_divider(hw);
> + unsigned long prediv_rate;
> + unsigned long flags = 0;
> + int prediv_value;
> + int div_value;
> + u32 val;
> +
> + prediv_value = divider_get_val(rate, parent_rate, NULL,
> + PCG_PREDIV_WIDTH, CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST);
> + if (prediv_value < 0)
> + return prediv_value;
> +
> + prediv_rate = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL((u64)parent_rate, prediv_value + 1);
> +
> + div_value = divider_get_val(rate, prediv_rate, NULL,
> + PCG_DIV_WIDTH, CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST);
> + if (div_value < 0)
> + return div_value;
Does this work with expected accuracy? Consider the best divider you are
looking for is 9. With the above you'll end up with a predivider of 8
and a postdivider of 1 instead of the optimum divider values of 3 and 3.
I think you have to iterate over all possible divider combinations and
then use the best one found. The original divider code does this, albeit
a little obfuscated.
You have to do the same in round_rate aswell.
Sorry, I missed that when I last looked at it in v6.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists