[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2174554.Mh6RI2rZIc@jernej-laptop>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 16:12:42 +0100
From: Jernej Škrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>
To: Frank Oltmanns <frank@...manns.dev>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
Guido Günther <agx@...xcpu.org>,
Purism Kernel Team <kernel@...i.sm>, Ondrej Jirman <megi@....cz>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject:
Re: [PATCH 4/5] clk: sunxi-ng: a64: Add constraints on PLL-VIDEO0's n/m ratio
Dne sreda, 20. december 2023 ob 08:09:28 CET je Frank Oltmanns napisal(a):
>
> On 2023-12-19 at 17:54:19 +0100, Jernej Škrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com> wrote:
> > Dne ponedeljek, 18. december 2023 ob 14:35:22 CET je Frank Oltmanns napisal(a):
> >> The Allwinner A64 manual lists the following constraint for the
> >> PLL-VIDEO0 clock: 8 <= N/M <= 25
> >>
> >> Use this constraint.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@...manns.dev>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c | 8 ++++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
> >> index c034ac027d1c..75d839da446c 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.c
> >> @@ -68,7 +68,8 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_SDM_GATE_LOCK(pll_audio_base_clk, "pll-audio-base",
> >> BIT(28), /* lock */
> >> CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
> >>
> >> -static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX_CLOSEST(pll_video0_clk, "pll-video0",
> >> +static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX_FEAT_NM_RATIO(pll_video0_clk,
> >> + "pll-video0",
> >> "osc24M", 0x010,
> >> 192000000, /* Minimum rate */
> >> 1008000000, /* Maximum rate */
> >> @@ -80,7 +81,10 @@ static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX_CLOSEST(pll_video0_clk, "pll-vid
> >> 297000000, /* frac rate 1 */
> >> BIT(31), /* gate */
> >> BIT(28), /* lock */
> >> - CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE);
> >> + CLK_SET_RATE_UNGATE,
> >> + CCU_FEATURE_FRACTIONAL |
> >> + CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE,
> >
> > Above flags are unrelated change, put them in new patch if needed.
>
> You might notice that I am using a new macro for initializing the
> pll_video0_clk struct:
> New: SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX_FEAT_NM_RATIO
> Old: SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX_CLOSEST
>
> Setting the two CCU_FEATURE flags is part of the old initialization
> macro.
>
> I'll add SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK_MIN_MAX_NM_RATIO_CLOSEST which
> hopefully resolves the confusion.
I'm in doubt if we need so many macros. How many users of these macro we'll have?
I see that R40 SoC would also need same ratio limits, but other that that, none?
Best regards,
Jernej
>
> Thanks,
> Frank
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jernej
> >
> >> + 8, 25); /* min/max nm ratio */
> >>
> >> static SUNXI_CCU_NM_WITH_FRAC_GATE_LOCK(pll_ve_clk, "pll-ve",
> >> "osc24M", 0x018,
> >>
> >>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists