[PATCH V4 03/11] clk: imx: scu: add scu clock divider
From: aisheng.dong@nxp.com (A.s. Dong)
Date: 2018-10-17 15:45:13
Also in:
linux-clk
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Boyd [mailto:sboyd at kernel.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 11:17 PM Quoting A.s. Dong (2018-10-17 01:56:35)quoted
quoted
From: Stephen Boyd [mailto:sboyd at kernel.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 5:26 AM Quoting A.s. Dong (2018-10-14 01:07:49)quoted
diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/scu/clk-divider-scu.cb/drivers/clk/imx/scu/clk-divider-scu.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..51cb816--- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/clk/imx/scu/clk-divider-scu.c@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ + msg.clk = div->clk_type; + + ret = imx_scu_call_rpc(ccm_ipc_handle, &msg, true); + if (ret) { + pr_err("%s: failed to get clock rate %d\n", + clk_hw_get_name(hw), ret); + return 0; + } + + resp = (struct imx_sc_msg_resp_get_clock_rate *)&msg;Does the response get written to the same place that the message is written? IfYesquoted
so, it would be better to combine the different structs into a union that's always large enough to handle this? For example, it looks like there are only 16 + 8 bytes for the get_clock_rate structure, but then the response is + returning the rate in 32 bytes. When we cast that here we're now getting an extra 8 bytes of stack, aren't we? Combining the different structures into one bigger structure would alleviate this and avoid the needfor casting.quoted
quoted
Good catch. Thanks for the professional explanation. How about do something like below? struct req_get_clock_rate { u16 resource; u8 clk; } __packed; struct resp_get_clock_rate { u32 rate; } __packed;This doesn't need __packed because it's a single u32.
It's a safe writing, but yes, can be removed.
quoted
struct imx_sc_msg_get_clock_rate { struct imx_sc_rpc_msg hdr; union { struct req_get_clock_rate req; struct resp_get_clock_rate resp; } data; } __packed;Yes something like this would be best. And now I wonder if imx_scu_call_rpc() is doing endianness swapping? Or does it copy data into these response structures? I'm saying that the u32/16/8 may need to be __le32/16/8 and then have the proper accessors.
No endianness swapping. It's fixed little endian. SCU protocol isn't aware of these structures. The structures are defined according to SCU protocol definition to make sure each field position and size are correct. Then SCU IPC driver just send and receive them sequentially. Client driver uses the structures to retrieve the responding filed values. We do this like drivers/firmware/ti_sci.h Do you think we still need specify __le32/16/8 for this case?
quoted
quoted
quoted
+ hdr->size = 3; + + msg.rate = rate; + msg.resource = div->rsrc_id; + msg.clk = div->clk_type; + + ret = imx_scu_call_rpc(ccm_ipc_handle, &msg, true); + if (ret) + pr_err("%s: failed to set clock rate %ld : ret %d\n", + clk_hw_get_name(hw), rate, ret); + + return 0; +} + +static const struct clk_ops clk_divider_scu_ops = { + .recalc_rate = clk_divider_scu_recalc_rate, + .round_rate = clk_divider_scu_round_rate, + .set_rate = clk_divider_scu_set_rate, }; + +struct clk_hw *imx_clk_register_divider_scu(const char *name, + const char*parent_name,quoted
+ u32 rsrc_id, + u8 clk_type) { + struct clk_divider_scu *div; + struct clk_init_data init; + struct clk_hw *hw; + int ret; + + div = kzalloc(sizeof(*div), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!div) + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); + + div->rsrc_id = rsrc_id; + div->clk_type = clk_type; + + init.name = name; + init.ops = &clk_divider_scu_ops; + init.flags = CLK_GET_RATE_NOCACHE;Why nocache? Please have a good reason and add a comment indicatingwhy.quoted
quoted
Because on MX8, the clocks are tightly couple with power domain that once the power domain is off, the clock status will be lost. Making it NOCACHE helps user to retrieve the real clock status from HW Instead of using the possible invalid cached rate. Is that reasonable enough to specify it?Yes, you can add a comment like that. Or the clk rate can be restored when the power domain is enabled again?
No restore when power domain is enabled again. That needs driver to do special handling. Can we add the comment in commit message as there're still many other places using this? Regards Dong Aisheng