linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: gcc: Add missing clocks in SM8150

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]

Message-ID: <20191016122343.GM2654@vkoul-mobl>
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:53:43 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: gcc: Add missing clocks in SM8150

Hi Steve,

Looks like I missed replying to this one, apologies!

On 17-09-19, 09:09, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Vinod Koul (2019-09-17 02:16:23)
> > The initial upstreaming of SM8150 GCC driver missed few clock so add
> > them up now.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
> > ---
> 
> Should have some sort of fixes tag?

Not really, the drivers to use these clks are not upstream so we dont
miss it yet

> 
> >  drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c | 172 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 172 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c
> > index 12ca2d14797f..13d4d14a5744 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c
> > @@ -1616,6 +1616,38 @@ static struct clk_branch gcc_gpu_cfg_ahb_clk = {
> >         },
> >  };
> >  
> > +static struct clk_branch gcc_gpu_gpll0_clk_src = {
> > +       .halt_check = BRANCH_HALT_SKIP,
> 
> Why skip?

I will explore and add comments for that

> > +       .clkr = {
> > +               .enable_reg = 0x52004,
> > +               .enable_mask = BIT(15),
> > +               .hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
> > +                       .name = "gcc_gpu_gpll0_clk_src",
> > +                       .parent_hws = (const struct clk_hw *[]){
> > +                               &gpll0.clkr.hw },
> > +                       .num_parents = 1,
> > +                       .flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
> > +                       .ops = &clk_branch2_ops,
> > +               },
> > +       },
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct clk_branch gcc_gpu_gpll0_div_clk_src = {
> > +       .halt_check = BRANCH_HALT_SKIP,
> 
> Why skip?
> 
> > +       .clkr = {
> > +               .enable_reg = 0x52004,
> > +               .enable_mask = BIT(16),
> > +               .hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
> > +                       .name = "gcc_gpu_gpll0_div_clk_src",
> > +                       .parent_hws = (const struct clk_hw *[]){
> > +                               &gcc_gpu_gpll0_clk_src.clkr.hw },
> > +                       .num_parents = 1,
> > +                       .flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
> > +                       .ops = &clk_branch2_ops,
> > +               },
> > +       },
> > +};
> > +
> >  static struct clk_branch gcc_gpu_iref_clk = {
> >         .halt_reg = 0x8c010,
> >         .halt_check = BRANCH_HALT,
> > @@ -1698,6 +1730,38 @@ static struct clk_branch gcc_npu_cfg_ahb_clk = {
> >         },
> >  };
> >  
> > +static struct clk_branch gcc_npu_gpll0_clk_src = {
> > +       .halt_check = BRANCH_HALT_SKIP,
> > +       .clkr = {
> > +               .enable_reg = 0x52004,
> > +               .enable_mask = BIT(18),
> > +               .hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
> > +                       .name = "gcc_npu_gpll0_clk_src",
> > +                       .parent_hws = (const struct clk_hw *[]){
> > +                               &gpll0.clkr.hw },
> > +                       .num_parents = 1,
> > +                       .flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
> > +                       .ops = &clk_branch2_ops,
> > +               },
> > +       },
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct clk_branch gcc_npu_gpll0_div_clk_src = {
> > +       .halt_check = BRANCH_HALT_SKIP,
> > +       .clkr = {
> > +               .enable_reg = 0x52004,
> > +               .enable_mask = BIT(19),
> > +               .hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
> > +                       .name = "gcc_npu_gpll0_div_clk_src",
> > +                       .parent_hws = (const struct clk_hw *[]){
> > +                               &gcc_npu_gpll0_clk_src.clkr.hw },
> > +                       .num_parents = 1,
> > +                       .flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
> > +                       .ops = &clk_branch2_ops,
> > +               },
> > +       },
> > +};
> > +
> >  static struct clk_branch gcc_npu_trig_clk = {
> >         .halt_reg = 0x4d00c,
> >         .halt_check = BRANCH_VOTED,
> > @@ -2812,6 +2876,42 @@ static struct clk_branch gcc_ufs_card_phy_aux_hw_ctl_clk = {
> >         },
> >  };
> >  
> > +static struct clk_branch gcc_ufs_card_rx_symbol_0_clk = {
> > +       .halt_check = BRANCH_HALT_SKIP,
> 
> Can't we fix the UFS driver to not require this anymore? This is the
> fourth or fifth time I've asked for this.

yeah Bjorn did tell me that and I think there was some other thread on
similar lines. So is this fine by you.

-- 
~Vinod