Message-ID: <38b14d24-534a-447e-a930-6a96c693b7e4@tuxon.dev>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 15:58:00 +0300
From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>
To: Varshini.Rajendran@...rochip.com, mturquette@...libre.com,
 sboyd@...nel.org, Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com,
 alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Patrice.Vilchez@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: at91: sam9x7: update pll clk ranges

Hi, Varshini,

On 11.07.2025 10:38, Varshini.Rajendran@...rochip.com wrote:
> Hi Claudiu,
> 
> On 10/07/25 1:48 pm, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> Hi, Varshini,
>>
>> On 24.06.2025 12:09, Varshini.Rajendran@...rochip.com wrote:
>>> Hi Claudiu,
>>>
>>> On 24/06/25 12:34 pm, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Varshini,
>>>>
>>>> On 10.06.2025 11:45, Varshini Rajendran wrote:
>>>>> Update the min, max ranges of the PLL clocks according to the latest
>>>>> datasheet to be coherent in the driver. This patch apparently solves
>>>>> issues in obtaining the right sdio frequency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 33013b43e271 ("clk: at91: sam9x7: add sam9x7 pmc driver")
>>>>> Suggested-by: Patrice Vilchez <Patrice.Vilchez@...rochip.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Varshini Rajendran <varshini.rajendran@...rochip.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    drivers/clk/at91/sam9x7.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
>>>>>    1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/sam9x7.c b/drivers/clk/at91/sam9x7.c
>>>>> index cbb8b220f16b..ffab32b047a0 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/clk/at91/sam9x7.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/sam9x7.c
>>>>> @@ -61,44 +61,44 @@ static const struct clk_master_layout sam9x7_master_layout = {
>>>>>
>>>>>    /* Fractional PLL core output range. */
>>>>>    static const struct clk_range plla_core_outputs[] = {
>>>>> -     { .min = 375000000, .max = 1600000000 },
>>>>> +     { .min = 800000000, .max = 1600000000 },
>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>>    static const struct clk_range upll_core_outputs[] = {
>>>>> -     { .min = 600000000, .max = 1200000000 },
>>>>> +     { .min = 600000000, .max = 960000000 },
>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>>    static const struct clk_range lvdspll_core_outputs[] = {
>>>>> -     { .min = 400000000, .max = 800000000 },
>>>>> +     { .min = 600000000, .max = 1200000000 },
>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>>    static const struct clk_range audiopll_core_outputs[] = {
>>>>> -     { .min = 400000000, .max = 800000000 },
>>>>> +     { .min = 600000000, .max = 1200000000 },
>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>>    static const struct clk_range plladiv2_core_outputs[] = {
>>>>> -     { .min = 375000000, .max = 1600000000 },
>>>>> +     { .min = 800000000, .max = 1600000000 },
>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>>    /* Fractional PLL output range. */
>>>>>    static const struct clk_range plla_outputs[] = {
>>>>> -     { .min = 732421, .max = 800000000 },
>>>>> +     { .min = 400000000, .max = 800000000 },
>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>>    static const struct clk_range upll_outputs[] = {
>>>>> -     { .min = 300000000, .max = 600000000 },
>>>>> +     { .min = 300000000, .max = 480000000 },
>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>>    static const struct clk_range lvdspll_outputs[] = {
>>>>> -     { .min = 10000000, .max = 800000000 },
>>>>> +     { .min = 175000000, .max = 550000000 },
>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>>    static const struct clk_range audiopll_outputs[] = {
>>>>> -     { .min = 10000000, .max = 800000000 },
>>>>> +     { .min = 0, .max = 300000000 },
>>>>
>>>> Is this min value something valid?
>>>
>>> Yes. This is a valid value mentioned in the datasheet. This is the range
>>> that fixes the issue of not being able to set low frequency values for
>>> the SDIO interface for instance.
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply. This range is for audiopll. Can you please
>> explain in the commit message why this fixes issues with the SDIO interface.
> 
> I can do that, while doing so, I can rephrase it as well. SDIO is just 
> an example, It can potentially fix any range issues in any clock 
> associated with peripherals can have.
> 
>>
>> Also, having zero here as min rate would involve, as of my code inspection,
>> setting frac->mul = -1 for disabled PLLs on probe (I suppose audio PLLs are
>> among them). Please check:
>>
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.15.5/source/drivers/clk/at91/clk-sam9x60-pll.c#L693
>>
>> Having frac->mul = -1 means frac->mul = 0xff meaning the HW registers will
>> be set with the maximum multiplier. If my assumption is right, for a
>> reference clock of 24MHz this will mean the Fcorepll will be 384MHz which
>> is not in range for Fcorepll specifications (described by
>> audiopll_core_outputs[]).
>>
>> This may be harmless if the PLL is unused at boot time, or reconfigured
>> later, but if the PLL is just enabled later (w/o setting again the
>> frequency) and the core output frequency is not in range (described by
>> audiopll_core_outputs[]) it will lead to PLL lock to take forever and the
>> execution to stuck.
>>
>> Can you please check this?
> 
> I inspected the code on my side and did the calculations and I didn't 
> quite get the part how you arrived at the value 384MHz, my bad. But I 
> did get your point.
> 
> What if I set the minimum AudioPLL output that can be obtained from the 
> coreclk output range which is 600MHz minimum, which gives us 2343750Hz 
> as the minimum AudioPLL frequency achievable from the divider part. If 
> that is okay I can send another version of this patch.
> 

I've rechecked this on my side and I concluded I was wrong. The call:

ret = sam9x60_frac_pll_compute_mul_frac(&frac->core,
                                       characteristics->core_output[0].min,
                                       parent_rate, true);

from sam9x60_clk_register_frac_pll() is using
characteristics->core_output[0].min as parameter but not
characteristics->output[0].min as I initially considered. So, the change
here should be OK.

Sorry for confusion! Please re-send with the patch description adjusted and
I'll apply it.

Thank you,
Claudiu


> Thank you for spending the time to review my patch and for the detailed 
> explanations.
> 
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Claudiu
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists