[PATCH] arm64: dts: mt8173: add clock_null

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Sascha Hauer [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 10:15:29PM +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Sascha Hauer [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 01:29:11PM +0800, Eddie Huang wrote:

quoted

Add clk_null, which represents clocks that can not / need not
controlled by software.
There are many clocks' parent set to clk_null.

Signed-off-by: James Liao <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@mediatek.com>
---
Base on 4.1-rc1

Change-Id: I4db9b40d07e28f54f7bae9b676316cbd6a962124
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi
index 924fdb6..4798f44 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi

@@ -81,6 +81,12 @@
              cpu_on        = <0x84000003>;
      };

+     clk_null: clk_null {
+             compatible = "fixed-clock";
+             clock-frequency = <0>;
+             #clock-cells = <0>;
+     };

The discussion around this patch shows that we don't want to have this
clock in the device tree as it is not a hardware description.

Ok, fine. Eddie, you told us that the rate of the current clk_null children
is not interesting. What's the motivation to send this patch anyway
then? Why can't you keep its children on the orphan list where they are
already now?

Another possibility would be to instantiate the clk_null clock from C
code rather than from the device tree. This way we wouldn't put any
wrong descriptions into the device tree and still can implement the
support for the real parent clocks when we actually need them.

Some device nodes, like mmc, use a clk_null phandle as one of their clocks:

mmc1: mmc at 11240000 {
        compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-mmc",
                     "mediatek,mt8135-mmc";
        reg = <0 0x11240000 0 0x1000>;
        interrupts = <GIC_SPI 72 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
        clocks = <&pericfg CLK_PERI_MSDC30_1>,
                 <&clk_null>;
        clock-names = "source", "hclk";
        status = "disabled";
};

This is another case than the one we discussed about. In the case above
I motivated using a dummy clock since the clock exists in the system,
but is not software controllable. To abstract this from the driver
(which needs this clock since it exists) we here have the dummy clock.
However, of course I can't prove the clock is indeed not software
controllable; that's only the information I have.

I was trying to answer your question "What's the motivation to send
this patch anyway?".
The motivation is to send follow on patches that use the clk_null
phandle.  We need to provide some clock as the mmc1's hclk.  I do not
understand why this has to be "clk_null", though.  It seems like this
should be a real clock coming from one of the real clock_controller
nodes.  After all, the mmc driver is going to be enabling/disabling
this clock for power savings at runtime.  What does that even mean for
clk_null ?

Sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying in your last reply.

Sascha

--
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |