Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1670149 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V1 9/9] arm64: dts: add ccu for SC9860

Started byStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
First post2017-06-20 03:30 +0200
Last post2017-06-30 09:40 +0200
Articles 4 — 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.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH V1 9/9] arm64: dts: add ccu for SC9860 Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> - 2017-06-20 03:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V1 9/9] arm64: dts: add ccu for SC9860 Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 12:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH V1 9/9] arm64: dts: add ccu for SC9860 Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> - 2017-06-30 03:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH V1 9/9] arm64: dts: add ccu for SC9860 Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 09:40 +0200

#1670149 — Re: [PATCH V1 9/9] arm64: dts: add ccu for SC9860

FromStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Date2017-06-20 03:30 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH V1 9/9] arm64: dts: add ccu for SC9860
Message-ID<tUg9r-1X0-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 06/18, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/sprd/sc9860-ccu.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/sprd/sc9860-ccu.dtsi
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..e15bf2d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/sprd/sc9860-ccu.dtsi
> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> +/*
> + * Spreadtrum SC9860 SoC CCU
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2017, Spreadtrum Communications Inc.
> + *
> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
> + */
> +
> +&soc {
> +	ext_26m: ext-26m {
> +		compatible = "fixed-clock";
> +		#clock-cells = <0>;
> +		clock-frequency = <26000000>;
> +		clock-output-names = "ext-26m";
> +	};
> +
> +	ext_32m_sine0: ext-32m-sine0 {
> +		compatible = "fixed-clock";
> +		#clock-cells = <0>;
> +		clock-frequency = <32000000>;
> +		clock-output-names = "ext-32m-sine0";
> +	};
> +
> +	ext_32m_sine1: ext-32m-sine1 {
> +		compatible = "fixed-clock";
> +		#clock-cells = <0>;
> +		clock-frequency = <32000000>;
> +		clock-output-names = "ext-32m-sine1";
> +	};
> +
> +	ext_rco_100m: ext-rco-100m {
> +		compatible = "fixed-clock";
> +		#clock-cells = <0>;
> +		clock-frequency = <100000000>;
> +		clock-output-names = "ext-rco-100m";
> +	};
> +
> +	ext_32k: ext-32k {
> +		compatible = "fixed-clock";
> +		#clock-cells = <0>;
> +		clock-frequency = <32768>;
> +		clock-output-names = "ext-32k";
> +	};

These should all be outside of the soc node as they're probably
on the board and not the SoC? The hint is that they don't have a
reg property.

> +
> +	ccu: clk {

clock-controller is a more standard node name.

> +		compatible = "sprd,sc9860-ccu";
> +		#clock-cells = <1>;
> +		reg = <0 0x20000000 0 0x400>,
> +		      <0 0x20210000 0 0x3000>,
> +		      <0 0x402b0000 0 0x4000>,
> +		      <0 0x402d0000 0 0x400>,
> +		      <0 0x402e0000 0 0x4000>,
> +		      <0 0x40400000 0 0x400>,
> +		      <0 0x40880000 0 0x400>,
> +		      <0 0x415e0000 0 0x400>,
> +		      <0 0x60200000 0 0x400>,
> +		      <0 0x61000000 0 0x400>,
> +		      <0 0x61100000 0 0x3000>,
> +		      <0 0x62000000 0 0x4000>,
> +		      <0 0x62100000 0 0x4000>,
> +		      <0 0x63000000 0 0x400>,
> +		      <0 0x63100000 0 0x3000>,
> +		      <0 0x70b00000 0 0x3000>;

There are a lot of reg properties here. Perhaps there needs to be
different nodes for the different clock controllers in this SoC?

> +		clocks = <&ext_26m>, <&ext_rco_100m>, <&ext_32k>;
> +		clock-names = "ext-26m", "ext-rco-100m", "ext-32k";
> +	};

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1672509

FromChunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>
Date2017-06-22 12:30 +0200
Message-ID<tV7x8-3ll-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1670149
Hi Stephen,

On 20 June 2017 at 09:24, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 06/18, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/sprd/sc9860-ccu.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/sprd/sc9860-ccu.dtsi
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..e15bf2d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/sprd/sc9860-ccu.dtsi
>> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Spreadtrum SC9860 SoC CCU
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2017, Spreadtrum Communications Inc.
>> + *
>> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
>> + */
>> +
>> +&soc {
>> +     ext_26m: ext-26m {
>> +             compatible = "fixed-clock";
>> +             #clock-cells = <0>;
>> +             clock-frequency = <26000000>;
>> +             clock-output-names = "ext-26m";
>> +     };
>> +
>> +     ext_32m_sine0: ext-32m-sine0 {
>> +             compatible = "fixed-clock";
>> +             #clock-cells = <0>;
>> +             clock-frequency = <32000000>;
>> +             clock-output-names = "ext-32m-sine0";
>> +     };
>> +
>> +     ext_32m_sine1: ext-32m-sine1 {
>> +             compatible = "fixed-clock";
>> +             #clock-cells = <0>;
>> +             clock-frequency = <32000000>;
>> +             clock-output-names = "ext-32m-sine1";
>> +     };
>> +
>> +     ext_rco_100m: ext-rco-100m {
>> +             compatible = "fixed-clock";
>> +             #clock-cells = <0>;
>> +             clock-frequency = <100000000>;
>> +             clock-output-names = "ext-rco-100m";
>> +     };
>> +
>> +     ext_32k: ext-32k {
>> +             compatible = "fixed-clock";
>> +             #clock-cells = <0>;
>> +             clock-frequency = <32768>;
>> +             clock-output-names = "ext-32k";
>> +     };
>
> These should all be outside of the soc node as they're probably
> on the board and not the SoC? The hint is that they don't have a
> reg property.
>
>> +
>> +     ccu: clk {
>
> clock-controller is a more standard node name.

OK, will address.

>
>> +             compatible = "sprd,sc9860-ccu";
>> +             #clock-cells = <1>;
>> +             reg = <0 0x20000000 0 0x400>,
>> +                   <0 0x20210000 0 0x3000>,
>> +                   <0 0x402b0000 0 0x4000>,
>> +                   <0 0x402d0000 0 0x400>,
>> +                   <0 0x402e0000 0 0x4000>,
>> +                   <0 0x40400000 0 0x400>,
>> +                   <0 0x40880000 0 0x400>,
>> +                   <0 0x415e0000 0 0x400>,
>> +                   <0 0x60200000 0 0x400>,
>> +                   <0 0x61000000 0 0x400>,
>> +                   <0 0x61100000 0 0x3000>,
>> +                   <0 0x62000000 0 0x4000>,
>> +                   <0 0x62100000 0 0x4000>,
>> +                   <0 0x63000000 0 0x400>,
>> +                   <0 0x63100000 0 0x3000>,
>> +                   <0 0x70b00000 0 0x3000>;
>
> There are a lot of reg properties here. Perhaps there needs to be
> different nodes for the different clock controllers in this SoC?
>

On Spreadtrum's platform, clocks are basically located in a few
address areas due to some hardware design issue, that says there're
more than one kinds of clocks in one address range, and one kind of
clocks have more than one physical address bases, except ccu_pll and
ccu_div in this patchset.

We're planning to map the whole device area at one time before
initializing each of them, once that has been done and upstreamed, I
will remove these lists of addressed.

Thanks for your review,
Chunyan

>> +             clocks = <&ext_26m>, <&ext_rco_100m>, <&ext_32k>;
>> +             clock-names = "ext-26m", "ext-rco-100m", "ext-32k";
>> +     };
>
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1678360

FromStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Date2017-06-30 03:00 +0200
Message-ID<tXSrT-6F8-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1672509
On 06/22, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On 20 June 2017 at 09:24, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > On 06/18, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
> 
> >
> >> +             compatible = "sprd,sc9860-ccu";
> >> +             #clock-cells = <1>;
> >> +             reg = <0 0x20000000 0 0x400>,
> >> +                   <0 0x20210000 0 0x3000>,
> >> +                   <0 0x402b0000 0 0x4000>,
> >> +                   <0 0x402d0000 0 0x400>,
> >> +                   <0 0x402e0000 0 0x4000>,
> >> +                   <0 0x40400000 0 0x400>,
> >> +                   <0 0x40880000 0 0x400>,
> >> +                   <0 0x415e0000 0 0x400>,
> >> +                   <0 0x60200000 0 0x400>,
> >> +                   <0 0x61000000 0 0x400>,
> >> +                   <0 0x61100000 0 0x3000>,
> >> +                   <0 0x62000000 0 0x4000>,
> >> +                   <0 0x62100000 0 0x4000>,
> >> +                   <0 0x63000000 0 0x400>,
> >> +                   <0 0x63100000 0 0x3000>,
> >> +                   <0 0x70b00000 0 0x3000>;
> >
> > There are a lot of reg properties here. Perhaps there needs to be
> > different nodes for the different clock controllers in this SoC?
> >
> 
> On Spreadtrum's platform, clocks are basically located in a few
> address areas due to some hardware design issue, that says there're
> more than one kinds of clocks in one address range, and one kind of
> clocks have more than one physical address bases, except ccu_pll and
> ccu_div in this patchset.
> 
> We're planning to map the whole device area at one time before
> initializing each of them, once that has been done and upstreamed, I
> will remove these lists of addressed.

Ok. Does this mean we need to wait for those patches to be sent
out for review? Is it more like certain clks are embedded inside
other devices like display controllers, i2c controllers, etc? Is
there any more information I can get on this SoC?

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1678567

FromChunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>
Date2017-06-30 09:40 +0200
Message-ID<tXYH1-2wp-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1678360
Hi Stephen,

Thanks for your every so clear and detailed answer, thank you.

On 30 June 2017 at 08:57, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 06/22, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On 20 June 2017 at 09:24, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> > On 06/18, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> +             compatible = "sprd,sc9860-ccu";
>> >> +             #clock-cells = <1>;
>> >> +             reg = <0 0x20000000 0 0x400>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x20210000 0 0x3000>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x402b0000 0 0x4000>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x402d0000 0 0x400>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x402e0000 0 0x4000>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x40400000 0 0x400>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x40880000 0 0x400>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x415e0000 0 0x400>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x60200000 0 0x400>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x61000000 0 0x400>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x61100000 0 0x3000>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x62000000 0 0x4000>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x62100000 0 0x4000>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x63000000 0 0x400>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x63100000 0 0x3000>,
>> >> +                   <0 0x70b00000 0 0x3000>;
>> >
>> > There are a lot of reg properties here. Perhaps there needs to be
>> > different nodes for the different clock controllers in this SoC?
>> >
>>
>> On Spreadtrum's platform, clocks are basically located in a few
>> address areas due to some hardware design issue, that says there're
>> more than one kinds of clocks in one address range, and one kind of
>> clocks have more than one physical address bases, except ccu_pll and
>> ccu_div in this patchset.
>>
>> We're planning to map the whole device area at one time before
>> initializing each of them, once that has been done and upstreamed, I
>> will remove these lists of addressed.
>
> Ok. Does this mean we need to wait for those patches to be sent

I don't think that would come out for review in the near future, so I
have to keep these ranges of the address listed here for the time
being.

> out for review? Is it more like certain clks are embedded inside
> other devices like display controllers, i2c controllers, etc? Is

From what I understand, that's just something like you said.

> there any more information I can get on this SoC?

I think you may get more information from our dts files [1], if you
would like to :)


Thanks again,
Chunyan

[1] https://github.com/sprdlinux/kernel/blob/sp9860g-1h10/arch/arm64/boot/dts/sprd/whale.dtsi

>
> --
> 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