Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1564027 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-21 01:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-01-24 01:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCHv4 1/5] clk: mvebu: support for 98DX3236 SoC Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> - 2017-01-21 01:50 +0100
Re: [PATCHv4 1/5] clk: mvebu: support for 98DX3236 SoC Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> - 2017-01-23 09:00 +0100
Re: [PATCHv4 1/5] clk: mvebu: support for 98DX3236 SoC Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> - 2017-01-24 01:00 +0100
| From | Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-21 01:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCHv4 1/5] clk: mvebu: support for 98DX3236 SoC |
| Message-ID | <t1S2t-5PG-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On 01/13, Chris Packham wrote:
> @@ -158,6 +170,14 @@ static const struct coreclk_soc_desc axp_coreclks = {
> .num_ratios = ARRAY_SIZE(axp_coreclk_ratios),
> };
>
> +static const struct coreclk_soc_desc mv98dx3236_coreclks = {
> + .get_tclk_freq = mv98dx3236_get_tclk_freq,
> + .get_cpu_freq = mv98dx3236_get_cpu_freq,
> + .get_clk_ratio = NULL,
> + .ratios = NULL,
> + .num_ratios = 0,
Are these intentionally initialized to 0 explicitly? Otherwise we
could leave them out and it's all the same.
> +};
> +
> /*
> * Clock Gating Control
> */
[..]
> @@ -243,5 +245,30 @@ static void __init of_cpu_clk_setup(struct device_node *node)
> iounmap(clock_complex_base);
> }
>
> +/* Use this function to call the generic setup with the correct
> + * clock operation
> + */
> +static void __init of_cpu_clk_setup(struct device_node *node)
> +{
> + _of_cpu_clk_setup(node, &cpu_ops);
> +}
> +
> CLK_OF_DECLARE(armada_xp_cpu_clock, "marvell,armada-xp-cpu-clock",
> of_cpu_clk_setup);
> +
> +/* Define the clock and operations for the mv98dx3236 - it cannot perform
> + * any operations.
> + */
> +static const struct clk_ops mv98dx3236_cpu_ops = {
> + .recalc_rate = NULL,
> + .round_rate = NULL,
> + .set_rate = NULL,
But clk_set_rate() works silently? Why not just register a clk
provider that returns a NULL pointer? Then there isn't any
structure to maintain?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 09:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t2HHI-3EH-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1564027 |
On 21/01/17 13:48, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 01/13, Chris Packham wrote:
>> @@ -158,6 +170,14 @@ static const struct coreclk_soc_desc axp_coreclks = {
>> .num_ratios = ARRAY_SIZE(axp_coreclk_ratios),
>> };
>>
>> +static const struct coreclk_soc_desc mv98dx3236_coreclks = {
>> + .get_tclk_freq = mv98dx3236_get_tclk_freq,
>> + .get_cpu_freq = mv98dx3236_get_cpu_freq,
>> + .get_clk_ratio = NULL,
>> + .ratios = NULL,
>> + .num_ratios = 0,
>
> Are these intentionally initialized to 0 explicitly? Otherwise we
> could leave them out and it's all the same.
>
No reason, just didn't remove the unused members when copying the
armada-xp example above.
>> +};
>> +
>> /*
>> * Clock Gating Control
>> */
> [..]
>> @@ -243,5 +245,30 @@ static void __init of_cpu_clk_setup(struct device_node *node)
>> iounmap(clock_complex_base);
>> }
>>
>> +/* Use this function to call the generic setup with the correct
>> + * clock operation
>> + */
>> +static void __init of_cpu_clk_setup(struct device_node *node)
>> +{
>> + _of_cpu_clk_setup(node, &cpu_ops);
>> +}
>> +
>> CLK_OF_DECLARE(armada_xp_cpu_clock, "marvell,armada-xp-cpu-clock",
>> of_cpu_clk_setup);
>> +
>> +/* Define the clock and operations for the mv98dx3236 - it cannot perform
>> + * any operations.
>> + */
>> +static const struct clk_ops mv98dx3236_cpu_ops = {
>> + .recalc_rate = NULL,
>> + .round_rate = NULL,
>> + .set_rate = NULL,
>
> But clk_set_rate() works silently? Why not just register a clk
> provider that returns a NULL pointer? Then there isn't any
> structure to maintain?
>
Not 100% sure what you mean. Something like this?
+static void __init of_mv98dx3236_cpu_clk_setup(struct device_node *node)
+{
+ of_clk_add_provider(node, of_clk_src_simple_get, NULL);
+}
Seems to work as expected (i.e. does nothing, kernel boots/runs).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-24 01:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t2WGJ-4NH-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1564740 |
On 01/22/2017 11:53 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
> Not 100% sure what you mean. Something like this?
>
> +static void __init of_mv98dx3236_cpu_clk_setup(struct device_node *node)
> +{
> + of_clk_add_provider(node, of_clk_src_simple_get, NULL);
> +}
>
> Seems to work as expected (i.e. does nothing, kernel boots/runs).
>
Yep that's what I mean.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web