[PATCH v4 02/15] clk: Allow drivers to pass in a regmap
From: Stephen Boyd <hidden>
Date: 2014-01-10 07:05:24
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, lkml
On 01/09, Mike Turquette wrote:
If we're going to use these wrappers, why make it regmap specific? The struct clk_desc patches[1][2] can achieve this, but in a more generic way.
I think you're suggesting a way to avoid adding a
clk_register_regmap() function? But won't we need to write the
same code:
if (dev && dev_get_regmap(dev, NULL))
[clk_type]->regmap = dev_get_regmap(dev, NULL);
else if (dev && dev->parent)
[clk_type]->regmap = dev_get_regmap(dev->parent, NULL);
everytime we want to assign the regmap pointer to a different clock type?
A macro might work for this little snippet, but it wouldn't have
any type safety.
quoted
2) Interfaces: Add a void *data in struct clk_hw that can point to whatever I want and still have the same clk_regmap_register() and devm_clk_regmap_register() Example: struct clk_hw { struct clk *clk; const struct clk_init_data *init; void *data; }; struct clk_regmap { struct regmap *regmap; unsigned int enable_reg; unsigned int enable_mask; bool enable_is_inverted; }; struct clk_branch { u32 hwcg_reg; u32 halt_reg; u8 hwcg_bit; u8 halt_bit; u8 halt_check; struct clk_hw; }; static struct clk_branch gsbi1_uart_clk = { .halt_reg = 0x2fcc, .halt_bit = 10, .hw = { .data = &(struct clk_regmap){ .enable_reg = 0x29d4, .enable_mask = BIT(9), }; .init = &(struct clk_init_data){ .name = "gsbi1_uart_clk", .parent_names = (const char *[]){ "gsbi1_uart_src", }, .num_parents = 1, .ops = &clk_branch_ops, .flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, }, }, }; I guess option 2 is less likely given your comment about clk_hw being nothing more than a traversal mechanism.Instead of private data, how about a .register() callback function that can point to anything you like? The clk_desc patches implement this and it would suffice for registering regmap ops or anything else, without polluting struct clk_hw. [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg101822.html [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg101698.html So you could statically define gsbi1_uart_clk with: static struct clk_branch_desc gsbi1_uart_clk_desc = { .halt_reg = 0x2fcc, .halt_bit = 10, .enable_reg = 0x29d4, .enable_mask = BIT(9), .desc = { .name = "gsbi1_uart_clk", .parent_names = (const char *[]){ "gsbi1_uart_src", }, .num_parents = 1, .ops = &clk_branch_ops, .flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, }, }; And then register it with: clk_register_desc(NULL, &gsbi1_uart_clk_desc.desc); This is very analogous to the way that you use use &gsbi1_uart_clk.hw but it is more generic and also doesn't pollute clk_hw any further. I also think your static data is quite a bit prettier using this method. Thoughts?
Is the plan to allocate a struct clk_branch at runtime and then
copy all the fields over one by one? I'm trying to avoid that
because it takes more time and more runtime memory. If I had to
go the descriptor route I would probably avoid copying any fields
and just point to the descriptor from struct clk_branch, i.e.
struct clk_branch {
struct clk_branch_desc *desc;
struct clk_hw;
};
but that still seems wasteful to allocate a bunch of little
pointer wrappers when I could have just embedded the clk_hw
struct inside the clk_branch struct from the start.
It feels another key point is being missed though. The regmap
pointer and the enable_reg/enable_mask is embedded in clk_hw to
allow the same code to be used by different types of surrounding
structs. Each struct: clk_pll, clk_rcg, and clk_branch in this
series use the regmap interface to enable/disable the clock and
they can easily do so by passing something that's always
available from struct clk_hw (be it via a wrapper struct, private
data member, or addition of new fields to clk_hw). If the regmap
members move into each specific type of clock we can't just pass
a single pointer to the enable/disable regmap functions anymore.
This is the reason why I suggested a driver data pointer or
container struct so that everything regmap related is contained
within one type.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation