[PATCH 2/5] phy: exynos5-usbdrd: Add pipe-clk and utmi-clk support
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: 2014-08-28 18:51:30
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-omap, linux-samsung-soc, lkml
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 09:01:57AM +0100, Vivek Gautam wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Exynos7 SoC has now separate gate control for 125MHz pipe3 phy clock, as well as 60MHz utmi phy clock. So get the same and control in the phy-exynos5-usbdrd driver. Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <redacted> --- .../devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt | 4 ++++ drivers/phy/phy-exynos5-usbdrd.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt index 7a6feea..b64d616 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt@@ -135,6 +135,10 @@ Required properties: PHY operations, associated by phy name. It is used to determine bit values for clock settings register. For Exynos5420 this is given as 'sclk_usbphy30' in CMU. + - optional clocks: Next gen Exynos SoCs have following additional
It's not going to be 'Next gen' for long...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ gate clocks available: + - phy_pipe: for PIPE3 phy + - phy_utmi: for UTMI+ phy - samsung,pmu-syscon: phandle for PMU system controller interface, used to control pmu registers for power isolation. - #phy-cells : from the generic PHY bindings, must be 1;diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-exynos5-usbdrd.c b/drivers/phy/phy-exynos5-usbdrd.c index b05302b..685c108 100644 --- a/drivers/phy/phy-exynos5-usbdrd.c +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-exynos5-usbdrd.c@@ -148,6 +148,8 @@ struct exynos5_usbdrd_phy_drvdata { * @dev: pointer to device instance of this platform device * @reg_phy: usb phy controller register memory base * @clk: phy clock for register access + * @pipeclk: clock for pipe3 phy + * @utmiclk: clock for utmi+ phy * @drv_data: pointer to SoC level driver data structure * @phys[]: array for 'EXYNOS5_DRDPHYS_NUM' number of PHY * instances each with its 'phy' and 'phy_cfg'.@@ -161,6 +163,8 @@ struct exynos5_usbdrd_phy { struct device *dev; void __iomem *reg_phy; struct clk *clk; + struct clk *pipeclk; + struct clk *utmiclk; const struct exynos5_usbdrd_phy_drvdata *drv_data; struct phy_usb_instance { struct phy *phy;@@ -446,6 +450,10 @@ static int exynos5_usbdrd_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy) dev_dbg(phy_drd->dev, "Request to power_on usbdrd_phy phy\n"); + if (!IS_ERR(phy_drd->utmiclk)) + clk_prepare_enable(phy_drd->utmiclk); + if (!IS_ERR(phy_drd->pipeclk)) + clk_prepare_enable(phy_drd->pipeclk); clk_prepare_enable(phy_drd->ref_clk); /* Enable VBUS supply */@@ -464,6 +472,10 @@ static int exynos5_usbdrd_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy) fail_vbus: clk_disable_unprepare(phy_drd->ref_clk); + if (!IS_ERR(phy_drd->pipeclk)) + clk_disable_unprepare(phy_drd->pipeclk); + if (!IS_ERR(phy_drd->utmiclk)) + clk_disable_unprepare(phy_drd->utmiclk); return ret; }@@ -483,6 +495,10 @@ static int exynos5_usbdrd_phy_power_off(struct phy *phy) regulator_disable(phy_drd->vbus); clk_disable_unprepare(phy_drd->ref_clk); + if (!IS_ERR(phy_drd->pipeclk)) + clk_disable_unprepare(phy_drd->pipeclk); + if (!IS_ERR(phy_drd->utmiclk)) + clk_disable_unprepare(phy_drd->utmiclk); return 0; }@@ -581,6 +597,14 @@ static int exynos5_usbdrd_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return PTR_ERR(phy_drd->clk); } + phy_drd->pipeclk = devm_clk_get(dev, "phy_pipe"); + if (IS_ERR(phy_drd->pipeclk)) + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to get pipe3 phy operational clock\n"); + + phy_drd->utmiclk = devm_clk_get(dev, "phy_utmi"); + if (IS_ERR(phy_drd->utmiclk)) + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to get utmi phy operational clock\n"); +
Pointless warnings for !Exynos7? Would it not be better to set these to NULL and not litter the code with IS_ERR checks? Mark.