On 02/15, Maxime Ripard wrote:

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 06:26:39PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Maxime Ripard
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:35:25AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:

quoted

+/*
+ * MMC2 supports what's called the "new timing mode". The CCU and the MMC
+ * controller must be in sync about which mode is used. The new mode moves
+ * the clock delay controls (and possibly the delay lines) into the MMC
+ * block. Also, the output of the clock is divided by 2. The output and
+ * sample phase clocks are unused under this mode.
+ *
+ * This new mode seems to be preferred. Hence we force this clock to the
+ * new mode. And we don't add the phase clocks.
+ */

I'm sorry, but I said this several times, this isn't working. We
should model it properly, and not hack this around in the clock
driver.

As you say in your comment, the MMC driver needs to be aware about
which mode is used, in order to also set a bit in one of its registers
accordingly, and modify its sampling behaviour.

The new timing is preferred, but our previous clock implementations
didn't hardcode it, so we can't even rely on that behaviour to always
write it in our driver.

Correct. With the A83T there has never been a merged clock driver though.
I realize this is a one off thing.

quoted

This is not something specific to the A83T, but is found in all the
SoCs since the A23, so we need to come up with a good solution to
address that.

I'm not sure what a good solution would be though. One would be to
just have a private function of our own to switch in the new mode (if
relevant, because only the MMC2 controllers have it), but that would
lead to troubles with !sunxi-ng. Not something we can't deal with, but
some extra precautions should be taken (make sure to protect the call
through an ifdef / IS_DEFINED, check that the sunxi-ng driver has been
probed, etc.)

If the custom function route is acceptable, I'll come up with something.

I think it would be a great start yes. I'll try to discuss it with
Mike and Stephen at ELC and see what they think about that.

I didn't hear anything at ELC. Can someone explain what the issue
is? Could something like clk_get_phase() + clk_get_rate() tell us
if we're in one mode vs. the other?

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project