[PATCH v2 6/6] clk: mvebu: Add the peripheral clock driver for Armada 3700
From: mturquette@baylibre.com (Michael Turquette)
Date: 2016-07-08 18:27:19
Also in:
linux-clk, linux-devicetree, lkml
Quoting Gregory CLEMENT (2016-07-07 15:37:51)
+#include <linux/clk-provider.h> +#include <linux/clk.h>
Same question as my previous email. Is clk.h necessary? Is this driver also a clk consumer?
+static int armada_3700_add_composite_clk(const struct clk_periph_data *data,
+ const char * const *parent_name,
+ void __iomem *reg, spinlock_t *lock,
+ struct device *dev, struct clk_hw *hw)
+{
+ const struct clk_ops *mux_ops = NULL, *gate_ops = NULL,
+ *div_ops = NULL;
+ struct clk_hw *mux_hw = NULL, *gate_hw = NULL, *div_hw = NULL;
+ const char * const *names;
+ struct clk_mux *mux = NULL;
+ struct clk_gate *gate = NULL;
+ struct clk_divider *div = NULL;
+ struct clk_double_div *double_div = NULL;
+ int num_parent;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (data->gate_shift != UNUSED) {
+ gate = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*gate), GFP_KERNEL);
+
+ if (!gate)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ gate->reg = reg + CLK_DIS;
+ gate->bit_idx = data->gate_shift;
+ gate->lock = lock;
+ gate_ops = &clk_gate_ops;
+ gate_hw = &gate->hw;
+ }
+
+ if (data->mux_shift != UNUSED) {
+ mux = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mux), GFP_KERNEL);
+
+ if (!mux) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto free_gate;
+ }
+
+ mux->reg = reg + TBG_SEL;
+ mux->shift = data->mux_shift;
+ mux->mask = 0x3;
+ mux->lock = lock;
+ mux_ops = &clk_mux_ro_ops;
+ mux_hw = &mux->hw;
+ }
+
+ if (data->div_reg1 != UNUSED) {
+ if (data->div_reg2 == UNUSED) {
+ const struct clk_div_table *clkt;
+ int table_size = 0;
+
+ div = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*div), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!div) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto free_mux;
+ }
+
+ div->reg = reg + data->div_reg1;
+ div->table = data->table;
+ for (clkt = div->table; clkt->div; clkt++)
+ table_size++;
+ div->width = order_base_2(table_size);
+ div->lock = lock;
+ div_ops = &clk_divider_ro_ops;
+ div_hw = &div->hw;
+ } else {
+ double_div = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*double_div),
+ GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!double_div) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto free_mux;
+ }
+
+ double_div->reg1 = reg + data->div_reg1;
+ double_div->shift1 = data->div_shift1;
+ double_div->reg2 = reg + data->div_reg1;
+ double_div->shift2 = data->div_shift2;
+ div_ops = &clk_double_div_ops;
+ div_hw = &double_div->hw;
+ }
+ }
+
+ switch (data->flags) {
+ case XTAL_CHILD:
+ /* the xtal clock is the 5th clock */
+ names = &parent_name[4];
+ num_parent = 1;
+ break;
+ case TBGA_S_CHILD:
+ /* the TBG A S clock is the 3rd clock */
+ names = &parent_name[2];
+ num_parent = 1;
+ break;
+ case GBE_CORE_CHILD:
+ names = &gbe_name[1];
+ num_parent = 1;
+ break;
+ case GBE_50_CHILD:
+ names = &gbe_name[0];
+ num_parent = 1;
+ break;
+ case GBE_125_CHILD:
+ names = &gbe_name[2];
+ num_parent = 1;
+ break;
+ default:
+ names = parent_name;
+ num_parent = 4;
+ }
+ hw = clk_hw_register_composite(dev, data->name,
+ names, num_parent,
+ mux_hw, mux_ops,
+ div_hw, div_ops,
+ gate_hw, gate_ops,
+ CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED);
+ if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
+ ret = PTR_ERR(hw);
+ goto free_div;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+free_div:
+ devm_kfree(dev, div);
+ devm_kfree(dev, double_div);
+free_mux:
+ devm_kfree(dev, mux);
+free_gate:
+ devm_kfree(dev, gate);
+ return ret;
+}Can this "add" function (aka registration function) be replaced with static data instead? I think that all of the static data exists already, this function can be removed and your probe can call clk_hw_register directly. It might need a macro though, since composite clock structures are rather messy. This avoids a lot of unnecessary allocations and time populating data that we already have access to. In general I am trying to encourage clk drivers to use only clk_hw_register() in their probe instead of the helper registration functions. Similarly I am discouraging drivers from populating hw.init at run-time, since we already have that data for that at compile-time. Regards, Mike