On 03/03, Maxime Ripard wrote:

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:17:05AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

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?

So we have two modes of operation for that clock, old vs new (I know,
I didn't pick the names).

The old mode is what we support right now. It has a combination of a
linear multiplier and divider, plus some phase controls.

The new mode however disables the phase controls and adds post-divider
of 2 on the rate.

We cannot really rely on the rate itself, since there's a huge overlap
between the rates we can obtain in the old and new modes. Same thing
for the phase, having a 0 deg phase is achieved both in the old and
new modes.

To make things worse, the new mode is only available on one out of
three MMC controllers (and associated clocks), and that MMC controller
needs to set a bit as well to switch to the new mode if needed. So we
definitely needs some synchronisation there, and also to be able to
retrieve if the mode switching is available, and if we're already
using that mode.

Mike agreed that the easiest way forward was to use a custom function.

Ok. Is there any need to change the mode dynamically at runtime?
Or could it be decided once at clk driver probe time/boot time
and detected via set_phase() failing when we're in the new mode?
At least, it sounds like set_phase() should bail out there
because it doesn't exist, although it could be argued that
setting the phase to something it already is set to is valid and
shouldn't return an error.

I'm not saying I'm opposed to the custom function, just thinking
of alternatives if MMC maintainers don't agree with the custom
function.

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