[PATCH v4 10/15] clk: exynos5420: update clocks for FSYS and FSYS2 blocks

Hi Tomasz,


On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Tomasz Figa [off-list ref] wrote:

Shaik,


On 06.05.2014 18:26, Shaik Ameer Basha wrote:

quoted

This patch adds more clocks from FSYS and FSYS2 blocks
and uses GATE_IP_* registers for gating IPs.

Signed-off-by: Rahul Sharma <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Shaik Ameer Basha <redacted>
---
  drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c |   41
++++++++++++++++++++++------------
  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c

b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c
index f0460b4..6d88ae2 100644

--- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c

[snip]

quoted

@@ -736,12 +749,9 @@ static struct samsung_gate_clock

exynos5420_gate_clks[] __initdata = {
        GATE(CLK_SCLK_USBPHY300, "sclk_usbphy300", "dout_usbphy300",
                GATE_TOP_SCLK_FSYS, 8, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
        GATE(CLK_SCLK_USBD300, "sclk_usbd300", "dout_usbd300",
-               GATE_TOP_SCLK_FSYS, 9, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
+               GATE_TOP_SCLK_FSYS, 9, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),

Why CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED? Also CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT seems quite right for this
clock.

Sorry, that was a hack for some internal USB testing. Some how it got
merged with this series.
I will revert it to CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT.

quoted

        GATE(CLK_SCLK_USBD301, "sclk_usbd301", "dout_usbd301",
-               GATE_TOP_SCLK_FSYS, 10, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
-
-       GATE(CLK_SCLK_USBD301, "sclk_unipro", "dout_unipro",
-               SRC_MASK_FSYS, 24, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
+               GATE_TOP_SCLK_FSYS, 10, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),

Same here.

Same here :)

quoted

        /* Display */
        GATE(CLK_SCLK_FIMD1, "sclk_fimd1", "dout_fimd1",

@@ -760,20 +770,23 @@ static struct samsung_gate_clock

exynos5420_gate_clks[] __initdata = {
                GATE_TOP_SCLK_MAU, 0, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
        GATE(CLK_SCLK_MAUPCM0, "sclk_maupcm0", "dout_maupcm0",
                GATE_TOP_SCLK_MAU, 1, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
-       /* FSYS */
+
+       /* FSYS Block */
        GATE(CLK_TSI, "tsi", "aclk200_fsys", GATE_BUS_FSYS0, 0, 0, 0),
        GATE(CLK_PDMA0, "pdma0", "aclk200_fsys", GATE_BUS_FSYS0, 1, 0, 0),
        GATE(CLK_PDMA1, "pdma1", "aclk200_fsys", GATE_BUS_FSYS0, 2, 0, 0),
        GATE(CLK_UFS, "ufs", "aclk200_fsys2", GATE_BUS_FSYS0, 3, 0, 0),
-       GATE(CLK_RTIC, "rtic", "aclk200_fsys", GATE_BUS_FSYS0, 5, 0, 0),
-       GATE(CLK_MMC0, "mmc0", "aclk200_fsys2", GATE_BUS_FSYS0, 12, 0, 0),
-       GATE(CLK_MMC1, "mmc1", "aclk200_fsys2", GATE_BUS_FSYS0, 13, 0, 0),
-       GATE(CLK_MMC2, "mmc2", "aclk200_fsys2", GATE_BUS_FSYS0, 14, 0, 0),
+       GATE(CLK_RTIC, "rtic", "aclk200_fsys", GATE_IP_FSYS, 9, 0, 0),
+       GATE(CLK_MMC0, "mmc0", "aclk200_fsys2", GATE_IP_FSYS, 12, 0, 0),
+       GATE(CLK_MMC1, "mmc1", "aclk200_fsys2", GATE_IP_FSYS, 13, 0, 0),
+       GATE(CLK_MMC2, "mmc2", "aclk200_fsys2", GATE_IP_FSYS, 14, 0, 0),
        GATE(CLK_SROMC, "sromc", "aclk200_fsys2",
-                       GATE_BUS_FSYS0, 19, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
-       GATE(CLK_USBH20, "usbh20", "aclk200_fsys", GATE_BUS_FSYS0, 20, 0,
0),
-       GATE(CLK_USBD300, "usbd300", "aclk200_fsys", GATE_BUS_FSYS0, 21,
0, 0),
-       GATE(CLK_USBD301, "usbd301", "aclk200_fsys", GATE_BUS_FSYS0, 28,
0, 0),
+                       GATE_IP_FSYS, 17, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
+       GATE(CLK_USBH20, "usbh20", "aclk200_fsys", GATE_IP_FSYS, 18, 0,
0),
+       GATE(CLK_USBD300, "usbd300", "aclk200_fsys", GATE_IP_FSYS, 19, 0,
0),
+       GATE(CLK_USBD301, "usbd301", "aclk200_fsys", GATE_IP_FSYS, 20, 0,
0),
+       GATE(CLK_SCLK_UNIPRO, "sclk_unipro", "dout_unipro",
+                       GATE_IP_FSYS, 23, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),

Gating an SCLK through an GATE_IP_* register looks a bit unusual. The
original entry for this clock had SRC_MASK_FSYS register used. Also there is
the GATE_TOP_SCLK_FSYS register, are you sure that there is no bit for this
clock there?

Thanks for catching this. SRC_MASK_FSYS is the right offset for this clock.
I will update this in next series.

Regards,
Shaik

Best regards,
Tomasz