[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d67f805f-2813-14e9-0c4f-5948ec73f7b0@opensource.cirrus.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 16:15:21 +0000
From: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
<nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
<linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] dt-bindings: audio-graph-card: Add plls and
sysclks properties
On 15/01/2021 15:20, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:42:12PM +0000, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
>> On 15/01/2021 13:11, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:35:23AM +0000, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
>>>> On 13/01/2021 16:09, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 09:22:25AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>
>>>> some_codec {
>>>> pll: pll {
>>>> compatible = "fixed-clock";
>>>> clocks = <&audio_mclk>;
>>>> clock-frequency = <98304000>;
>>>> }
>
>>> A PLL is not a fixed clock, why would you define a fixed clock here?
>
>> It's a fixed clock if you are only setting one configuration. Call it
>> compatible="any-other-dummy-clock-type" if you like, it doesn't matter
>> what it is for the purposes of what I was describing.
>
>> This isn't a clk driver for a pll, it's just a setting to be passed to
>> snd_soc_component_set_pll() using a clock binding to specify it.
>
> So you're trying to describe a crystal on the board? Why would this be
> a subnode of the CODEC then? Surely it's just a standard fixed clock
> which provides some input to the CODEC in the same way you'd describe
> any other input to the CODEC. The above doesn't look anything like the
> hardware. But if that's what you're doing how is that related to
> configuring the FLL except possibly as the input clock you'd reference?
>
>>> Are you confusing the selection of rates on existing clocks with the use
>>> of the assigned-* properties that the clock binding provides?
>
>> I'm not at all sure what you and Rob have in mind here. Perhaps you
>> could give an example of what you are thinking the .dts would look like
>> to define some pll/sysclk settings for audio-graph-card to apply. An
>> example is worth a thousand emails.
>
> As far as I can tell you are trying to configure the FLL in the CODEC,
> telling it to take an input clock and produce a fixed output clock rate
> from that. The FLL is a fairly basic clock, there are examples for both
> that and choosing a configuration for a clock in the clock bindings.
>
>>> That seems like a *very* surprising requirement - why would the clock
>>> binding have that requirement? It would seem to create issues for a
>>> single device providing multiple clocks which should be a pretty common
>>> coase.
>
>> You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that to do this:
>
>> sound {
>> clocks = <&pll>;
>> }
>
>> The node 'pll' must correspond to a clock provider driver. It can't be
>> just a bare node with some properties pick-n-mixed from the clock
>> binding, like this:
>
> I'm pretty sure I understand you perfectly; again, what makes you say
> that a description of a clock in the device tree has any requirement
> for a separate compatible string?
>
If I do:
sound {
clocks = <&clock>;
};
clock: clock {
compatible = "fixed-clock";
clock-frequency = <98304000>;
};
I can clk_bulk_get_all().
But if I remove the 'compatible' from the clock node, clk_bulk_get_all()
will return -EPROBE_DEFER and log:
/sound: Failed to get clk index: 0 ret: -517
from the error case in _clk_bulk_get() in clk/clk-bulk.c.
>> So the question I'm trying to ask is: when you and Rob said use
>> the clock binding, did you mean pointing to that binding from
>> clocks=<...>, or from a custom property like my audio-graph-card,plls
>> example above.
>
> When we say to use the clock binding what we are saying is to use the
> actual clock bindings to describe the clocks, not make a custom binding
> that looks kind of like them - making a custom binding doesn't address
> the problem.
>
But I don't know what you mean by "use the actual clock bindings to
describe the clocks".
What is not clear to me is how you want me to use a clock binding to
describe something that isn't a clk-framework clk. If you know what you
want, then please.. an example would help explain.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists