[v3] clk: ti: omap36xx: Work around sprz319 advisory 2.1

Commit Message

Ladislav Michl Dec. 5, 2016, 8:22 a.m. UTC

Hi Laurent,

I'm happy someone is stepping into this again :-) Just a few comments bellow
(and this thread for more: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg126591.html)

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:14:38PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> From: Richard Watts <[e-mail]>
> 
> The OMAP36xx DPLL5, driving EHCI USB, can be subject to a long-term
> frequency drift. The frequency drift magnitude depends on the VCO update
> rate, which is inversely proportional to the PLL divider. The kernel
> DPLL configuration code results in a high value for the divider, leading
> to a long term drift high enough to cause USB transmission errors. In
> the worst case the USB PHY's ULPI interface can stop responding,
> breaking USB operation completely. This manifests itself on the
> Beagleboard xM by the LAN9514 reporting 'Cannot enable port 2. Maybe the
> cable is bad?' in the kernel log.
> 
> Errata sprz319 advisory 2.1 documents PLL values that minimize the
> drift. Use them automatically when DPLL5 is used for USB operation,
> which we detect based on the requested clock rate. The clock framework
> will still compute the PLL parameters and resulting rate as usual, but
> the PLL M and N values will then be overridden. This can result in the
> effective clock rate being slightly different than the rate cached by
> the clock framework, but won't cause any adverse effect to USB
> operation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Richard Watts <[e-mail]>
> [Upported from v3.2 to v4.9]
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <[e-mail]>
> ---
> Changes since v2:
> 
> - Added spaces around +
> ---
>  drivers/clk/ti/clk-3xxx.c | 20 +++++++-------
>  drivers/clk/ti/clock.h    |  9 +++++++
>  drivers/clk/ti/dpll.c     | 19 +++++++++++++-
>  drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/ti/clk-3xxx.c b/drivers/clk/ti/clk-3xxx.c
> index 8831e1a05367..11d8aa3ec186 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/ti/clk-3xxx.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/ti/clk-3xxx.c
> @@ -22,13 +22,6 @@
>  
>  #include "clock.h"
>  
> -/*
> - * DPLL5_FREQ_FOR_USBHOST: USBHOST and USBTLL are the only clocks
> - * that are sourced by DPLL5, and both of these require this clock
> - * to be at 120 MHz for proper operation.
> - */
> -#define DPLL5_FREQ_FOR_USBHOST		120000000
> -
>  #define OMAP3430ES2_ST_DSS_IDLE_SHIFT			1
>  #define OMAP3430ES2_ST_HSOTGUSB_IDLE_SHIFT		5
>  #define OMAP3430ES2_ST_SSI_IDLE_SHIFT			8
> @@ -546,14 +539,21 @@ void __init omap3_clk_lock_dpll5(void)
>  	struct clk *dpll5_clk;
>  	struct clk *dpll5_m2_clk;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Errata sprz319f advisory 2.1 documents a USB host clock drift issue
> +	 * that can be worked around using specially crafted dpll5 settings
> +	 * with a dpll5_m2 divider set to 8. Set the dpll5 rate to 8x the USB
> +	 * host clock rate, its .set_rate handler() will detect that frequency
> +	 * and use the errata settings.
> +	 */
>  	dpll5_clk = clk_get(NULL, "dpll5_ck");
> -	clk_set_rate(dpll5_clk, DPLL5_FREQ_FOR_USBHOST);
> +	clk_set_rate(dpll5_clk, OMAP3_DPLL5_FREQ_FOR_USBHOST * 8);
>  	clk_prepare_enable(dpll5_clk);
>  
> -	/* Program dpll5_m2_clk divider for no division */
> +	/* Program dpll5_m2_clk divider */
>  	dpll5_m2_clk = clk_get(NULL, "dpll5_m2_ck");
>  	clk_prepare_enable(dpll5_m2_clk);
> -	clk_set_rate(dpll5_m2_clk, DPLL5_FREQ_FOR_USBHOST);
> +	clk_set_rate(dpll5_m2_clk, OMAP3_DPLL5_FREQ_FOR_USBHOST);
>  
>  	clk_disable_unprepare(dpll5_m2_clk);
>  	clk_disable_unprepare(dpll5_clk);
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/ti/clock.h b/drivers/clk/ti/clock.h
> index 90f3f472ae1c..13c37f48d9d6 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/ti/clock.h
> +++ b/drivers/clk/ti/clock.h
> @@ -257,11 +257,20 @@ long omap2_dpll_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long target_rate,
>  unsigned long omap3_clkoutx2_recalc(struct clk_hw *hw,
>  				    unsigned long parent_rate);
>  
> +/*
> + * OMAP3_DPLL5_FREQ_FOR_USBHOST: USBHOST and USBTLL are the only clocks
> + * that are sourced by DPLL5, and both of these require this clock
> + * to be at 120 MHz for proper operation.
> + */
> +#define OMAP3_DPLL5_FREQ_FOR_USBHOST	120000000
> +
>  unsigned long omap3_dpll_recalc(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long parent_rate);
>  int omap3_dpll4_set_rate(struct clk_hw *clk, unsigned long rate,
>  			 unsigned long parent_rate);
>  int omap3_dpll4_set_rate_and_parent(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>  				    unsigned long parent_rate, u8 index);
> +int omap3_dpll5_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> +			 unsigned long parent_rate);
>  void omap3_clk_lock_dpll5(void);
>  
>  unsigned long omap4_dpll_regm4xen_recalc(struct clk_hw *hw,
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/ti/dpll.c b/drivers/clk/ti/dpll.c
> index 9fc8754a6e61..4b9a419d8e14 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/ti/dpll.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/ti/dpll.c
> @@ -114,6 +114,18 @@ static const struct clk_ops omap3_dpll_ck_ops = {
>  	.round_rate	= &omap2_dpll_round_rate,
>  };
>  
> +static const struct clk_ops omap3_dpll5_ck_ops = {
> +	.enable		= &omap3_noncore_dpll_enable,
> +	.disable	= &omap3_noncore_dpll_disable,
> +	.get_parent	= &omap2_init_dpll_parent,
> +	.recalc_rate	= &omap3_dpll_recalc,
> +	.set_rate	= &omap3_dpll5_set_rate,
> +	.set_parent	= &omap3_noncore_dpll_set_parent,
> +	.set_rate_and_parent	= &omap3_noncore_dpll_set_rate_and_parent,
> +	.determine_rate	= &omap3_noncore_dpll_determine_rate,
> +	.round_rate	= &omap2_dpll_round_rate,
> +};
> +
>  static const struct clk_ops omap3_dpll_per_ck_ops = {
>  	.enable		= &omap3_noncore_dpll_enable,
>  	.disable	= &omap3_noncore_dpll_disable,
> @@ -474,7 +486,12 @@ static void __init of_ti_omap3_dpll_setup(struct device_node *node)
>  		.modes = (1 << DPLL_LOW_POWER_BYPASS) | (1 << DPLL_LOCKED),
>  	};
>  
> -	of_ti_dpll_setup(node, &omap3_dpll_ck_ops, &dd);
> +	if ((of_machine_is_compatible("ti,omap3630") ||
> +	     of_machine_is_compatible("ti,omap36xx")) &&
> +	    !strcmp(node->name, "dpll5_ck"))
> +		of_ti_dpll_setup(node, &omap3_dpll5_ck_ops, &dd);
> +	else
> +		of_ti_dpll_setup(node, &omap3_dpll_ck_ops, &dd);
>  }
>  CLK_OF_DECLARE(ti_omap3_dpll_clock, "ti,omap3-dpll-clock",
>  	       of_ti_omap3_dpll_setup);
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c b/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c
> index 88f2ce81ba55..4cdd28a25584 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c
> @@ -838,3 +838,70 @@ int omap3_dpll4_set_rate_and_parent(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>  	return omap3_noncore_dpll_set_rate_and_parent(hw, rate, parent_rate,
>  						      index);
>  }
> +
> +/* Apply DM3730 errata sprz319 advisory 2.1. */
> +static bool omap3_dpll5_apply_errata(struct clk_hw *hw,
> +				     unsigned long parent_rate)
> +{
> +	struct omap3_dpll5_settings {
> +		unsigned int rate, m, n;
> +	};
> +
> +	static const struct omap3_dpll5_settings precomputed[] = {
> +		/*
> +		 * From DM3730 errata advisory 2.1, table 35 and 36.
> +		 * The N value is increased by 1 compared to the tables as the
> +		 * errata lists register values while last_rounded_field is the
> +		 * real divider value.
> +		 */
> +		{ 12000000,  80,  0 + 1 },
> +		{ 13000000, 443,  5 + 1 },
> +		{ 19200000,  50,  0 + 1 },
> +		{ 26000000, 443, 11 + 1 },
> +		{ 38400000,  25,  0 + 1 }
> +	};

Table 36 list two options with 26MHz clocks: m=443, n=11 and m=480, n=12
with a statement: "The choice between these two options with a 26 MHz input
should be based on characterization on the end system."

Shall we care about that?

> +	const struct omap3_dpll5_settings *d;
> +	struct clk_hw_omap *clk = to_clk_hw_omap(hw);
> +	struct dpll_data *dd;
> +	unsigned int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(precomputed); ++i) {
> +		if (parent_rate == precomputed[i].rate)
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(precomputed))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	d = &precomputed[i];
> +
> +	/* Update the M, N and rounded rate values and program the DPLL. */
> +	dd = clk->dpll_data;
> +	dd->last_rounded_m = d->m;
> +	dd->last_rounded_n = d->n;
> +	dd->last_rounded_rate = div_u64((u64)parent_rate * d->m, d->n);
> +	omap3_noncore_dpll_program(clk, 0);
> +
> +	return true;
> +}

What about small optimization? Gives a few tens of bytes smaller code...

> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Laurent Pinchart

Best regards,
	ladis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-clk" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Comments

Laurent Pinchart Dec. 5, 2016, 8:46 a.m. UTC | #1

Hi Ladislav,

On Monday 05 Dec 2016 09:22:10 Ladislav Michl wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
> 
> I'm happy someone is stepping into this again :-) Just a few comments bellow
> (and this thread for more:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg126591.html)
>
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:14:38PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > From: Richard Watts <[e-mail]>
> > 
> > The OMAP36xx DPLL5, driving EHCI USB, can be subject to a long-term
> > frequency drift. The frequency drift magnitude depends on the VCO update
> > rate, which is inversely proportional to the PLL divider. The kernel
> > DPLL configuration code results in a high value for the divider, leading
> > to a long term drift high enough to cause USB transmission errors. In
> > the worst case the USB PHY's ULPI interface can stop responding,
> > breaking USB operation completely. This manifests itself on the
> > Beagleboard xM by the LAN9514 reporting 'Cannot enable port 2. Maybe the
> > cable is bad?' in the kernel log.
> > 
> > Errata sprz319 advisory 2.1 documents PLL values that minimize the
> > drift. Use them automatically when DPLL5 is used for USB operation,
> > which we detect based on the requested clock rate. The clock framework
> > will still compute the PLL parameters and resulting rate as usual, but
> > the PLL M and N values will then be overridden. This can result in the
> > effective clock rate being slightly different than the rate cached by
> > the clock framework, but won't cause any adverse effect to USB
> > operation.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Watts <[e-mail]>
> > [Upported from v3.2 to v4.9]
> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <[e-mail]>
> > ---
> > Changes since v2:
> > 
> > - Added spaces around +
> > ---
> > 
> >  drivers/clk/ti/clk-3xxx.c | 20 +++++++-------
> >  drivers/clk/ti/clock.h    |  9 +++++++
> >  drivers/clk/ti/dpll.c     | 19 +++++++++++++-
> >  drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

[snip]

> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c b/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c
> > index 88f2ce81ba55..4cdd28a25584 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c
> > @@ -838,3 +838,70 @@ int omap3_dpll4_set_rate_and_parent(struct clk_hw
> > *hw, unsigned long rate,
> >  	return omap3_noncore_dpll_set_rate_and_parent(hw, rate, parent_rate,
> >  						      index);
> >  }
> > +
> > +/* Apply DM3730 errata sprz319 advisory 2.1. */
> > +static bool omap3_dpll5_apply_errata(struct clk_hw *hw,
> > +				     unsigned long parent_rate)
> > +{
> > +	struct omap3_dpll5_settings {
> > +		unsigned int rate, m, n;
> > +	};
> > +
> > +	static const struct omap3_dpll5_settings precomputed[] = {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * From DM3730 errata advisory 2.1, table 35 and 36.
> > +		 * The N value is increased by 1 compared to the tables as the
> > +		 * errata lists register values while last_rounded_field is
> > the
> > +		 * real divider value.
> > +		 */
> > +		{ 12000000,  80,  0 + 1 },
> > +		{ 13000000, 443,  5 + 1 },
> > +		{ 19200000,  50,  0 + 1 },
> > +		{ 26000000, 443, 11 + 1 },
> > +		{ 38400000,  25,  0 + 1 }
> > +	};
> 
> Table 36 list two options with 26MHz clocks: m=443, n=11 and m=480, n=12
> with a statement: "The choice between these two options with a 26 MHz input
> should be based on characterization on the end system."
> 
> Shall we care about that?

I'd like to, but at the moment I don't see how. Proposals are welcome :-) I 
don't think addressing that issue should be a blocker to get this patch merged 
though.

> > +	const struct omap3_dpll5_settings *d;
> > +	struct clk_hw_omap *clk = to_clk_hw_omap(hw);
> > +	struct dpll_data *dd;
> > +	unsigned int i;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(precomputed); ++i) {
> > +		if (parent_rate == precomputed[i].rate)
> > +			break;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(precomputed))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	d = &precomputed[i];
> > +
> > +	/* Update the M, N and rounded rate values and program the DPLL. */
> > +	dd = clk->dpll_data;
> > +	dd->last_rounded_m = d->m;
> > +	dd->last_rounded_n = d->n;
> > +	dd->last_rounded_rate = div_u64((u64)parent_rate * d->m, d->n);
> > +	omap3_noncore_dpll_program(clk, 0);
> > +
> > +	return true;
> > +}
> 
> What about small optimization? Gives a few tens of bytes smaller code...
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c b/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c
> index 88f2ce8..cd22bcc 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c
> @@ -838,3 +838,67 @@ int omap3_dpll4_set_rate_and_parent(struct clk_hw *hw,
> unsigned long rate, return omap3_noncore_dpll_set_rate_and_parent(hw, rate,
> parent_rate, index);
>  }
> +
> +/* Apply DM3730 errata sprz319 advisory 2.1. */
> +static bool omap3_dpll5_apply_errata(struct clk_hw *hw,
> +				     unsigned long parent_rate)
> +{
> +	struct omap3_dpll5_settings {
> +		unsigned int rate, m, n;
> +	};
> +
> +	static const struct omap3_dpll5_settings precomputed[] = {
> +		/*
> +		 * From DM3730 errata advisory 2.1, table 35 and 36.
> +		 * The N value is increased by 1 compared to the tables as the
> +		 * errata lists register values while last_rounded_field is 
the
> +		 * real divider value.
> +		 */
> +		{ 12000000,  80,  0 + 1 },
> +		{ 13000000, 443,  5 + 1 },
> +		{ 19200000,  50,  0 + 1 },
> +		{ 26000000, 443, 11 + 1 },
> +		{ 38400000,  25,  0 + 1 }
> +	};
> +
> +	struct clk_hw_omap *clk;
> +	struct dpll_data *dd;
> +	unsigned int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(precomputed); i++)
> +		if (parent_rate == precomputed[i].rate) {
> +			clk = to_clk_hw_omap(hw);
> +			/* Update the M, N and rounded rate values */
> +			dd = clk->dpll_data;
> +			dd->last_rounded_m = precomputed[i].m;
> +			dd->last_rounded_n = precomputed[i].n;
> +			dd->last_rounded_rate =
> +				div_u64((u64)parent_rate * dd->last_rounded_m,
> +					dd->last_rounded_n);
> +			omap3_noncore_dpll_program(clk, 0);
> +
> +			return true;
> +		}
> +
> +	return false;
> +}

I had tried that, but I find the code less readable :-S

(I wish C had a for (...) { ... } else { ... } construct like Python does.)

> > +/**
> > + * omap3_dpll5_set_rate - set rate for omap3 dpll5
> > + * @hw: clock to change
> > + * @rate: target rate for clock
> > + * @parent_rate: rate of the parent clock
> > + *
> > + * Set rate for the DPLL5 clock. Apply the sprz319 advisory 2.1 on
> > OMAP36xx if
> > + * the DPLL is used for USB host (detected through the requested rate).
> > + */
> > +int omap3_dpll5_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> > +			 unsigned long parent_rate)
> > +{
> > +	if (rate == OMAP3_DPLL5_FREQ_FOR_USBHOST * 8) {
> > +		if (omap3_dpll5_apply_errata(hw, parent_rate))
> > +			return 0;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return omap3_noncore_dpll_set_rate(hw, rate, parent_rate);
> > +}

Ladislav Michl Dec. 5, 2016, 9:36 a.m. UTC | #2

Hi Laurent,

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:46:43AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Ladislav,
> 
> On Monday 05 Dec 2016 09:22:10 Ladislav Michl wrote:
[snip]
> > Table 36 list two options with 26MHz clocks: m=443, n=11 and m=480, n=12
> > with a statement: "The choice between these two options with a 26 MHz input
> > should be based on characterization on the end system."
> > 
> > Shall we care about that?
> 
> I'd like to, but at the moment I don't see how. Proposals are welcome :-) I 

One of proposals raised earlier was DT property, but that idea was scratched
later.

> don't think addressing that issue should be a blocker to get this patch merged 
> though.

Of course not. I'd like to even see it in stable ;-)

[snip]
> I had tried that, but I find the code less readable :-S

Oh... Please reconsider (I really do not like that extra test and extra
assignment to local variables (also I had 'precomputed' as mixed definition,
but Tero did not quite like that)) :-) Also, checked if the same values
are written to clk as with my patch, so here's my:
Tested-by: Ladislav Michl <[e-mail]>

Best regards,
	ladis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-clk" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Laurent Pinchart Dec. 5, 2016, 11:08 a.m. UTC | #3

Hi Ladislav,

On Monday 05 Dec 2016 10:36:49 Ladislav Michl wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:46:43AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Monday 05 Dec 2016 09:22:10 Ladislav Michl wrote:
>
> [snip]
> 
> >> Table 36 list two options with 26MHz clocks: m=443, n=11 and m=480, n=12
> >> with a statement: "The choice between these two options with a 26 MHz
> >> input should be based on characterization on the end system."
> >> 
> >> Shall we care about that?
> > 
> > I'd like to, but at the moment I don't see how. Proposals are welcome :-)
> > I
> 
> One of proposals raised earlier was DT property, but that idea was scratched
> later.

It might not be such a bad idea, given that the decision should be made based 
on the characterization of the whole system. One could argue that such 
platform information could have its place in DT.

> > don't think addressing that issue should be a blocker to get this patch
> > merged though.
> 
> Of course not. I'd like to even see it in stable ;-)
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > I had tried that, but I find the code less readable :-S
> 
> Oh... Please reconsider (I really do not like that extra test and extra
> assignment to local variables (also I had 'precomputed' as mixed definition,
> but Tero did not quite like that)) :-)

I still like to favour code readability when possible (especially when the 
compiler should optimize both versions the same way). I'm not the maintainer 
of this driver though, so I'll let Tero decides what he prefers.

> Also, checked if the same values are written to clk as with my patch, so
> here's my:
> Tested-by: Ladislav Michl <[e-mail]>

Thank you.

Tero Kristo Dec. 5, 2016, 12:24 p.m. UTC | #4

On 05/12/16 13:08, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Ladislav,
>
> On Monday 05 Dec 2016 10:36:49 Ladislav Michl wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:46:43AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Monday 05 Dec 2016 09:22:10 Ladislav Michl wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Table 36 list two options with 26MHz clocks: m=443, n=11 and m=480, n=12
>>>> with a statement: "The choice between these two options with a 26 MHz
>>>> input should be based on characterization on the end system."
>>>>
>>>> Shall we care about that?
>>>
>>> I'd like to, but at the moment I don't see how. Proposals are welcome :-)
>>> I
>>
>> One of proposals raised earlier was DT property, but that idea was scratched
>> later.
>
> It might not be such a bad idea, given that the decision should be made based
> on the characterization of the whole system. One could argue that such
> platform information could have its place in DT.
>
>>> don't think addressing that issue should be a blocker to get this patch
>>> merged though.
>>
>> Of course not. I'd like to even see it in stable ;-)
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I had tried that, but I find the code less readable :-S
>>
>> Oh... Please reconsider (I really do not like that extra test and extra
>> assignment to local variables (also I had 'precomputed' as mixed definition,
>> but Tero did not quite like that)) :-)
>
> I still like to favour code readability when possible (especially when the
> compiler should optimize both versions the same way). I'm not the maintainer
> of this driver though, so I'll let Tero decides what he prefers.

The compiler should ideally generate same size code for these both. 
Personally, I don't mind which version goes in; I'd say both are as 
readable.

Stephen, Mike, is one of you going to pick this up? I don't think I have 
anything else to pull due to the ongoing discussion with the other 
pending stuff.

-Tero

>
>> Also, checked if the same values are written to clk as with my patch, so
>> here's my:
>> Tested-by: Ladislav Michl <[e-mail]>
>
> Thank you.
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-clk" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Laurent Pinchart Dec. 5, 2016, 11:59 p.m. UTC | #5

Hi Ladislav,

On Monday 05 Dec 2016 10:36:49 Ladislav Michl wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:46:43AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Monday 05 Dec 2016 09:22:10 Ladislav Michl wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> >> Table 36 list two options with 26MHz clocks: m=443, n=11 and m=480, n=12
> >> with a statement: "The choice between these two options with a 26 MHz
> >> input should be based on characterization on the end system."
> >> 
> >> Shall we care about that?
> > 
> > I'd like to, but at the moment I don't see how. Proposals are welcome :-)
> > I
> 
> One of proposals raised earlier was DT property, but that idea was scratched
> later.
> 
> > don't think addressing that issue should be a blocker to get this patch
> > merged though.
> 
> Of course not. I'd like to even see it in stable ;-)
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > I had tried that, but I find the code less readable :-S
> 
> Oh... Please reconsider (I really do not like that extra test and extra
> assignment to local variables (also I had 'precomputed' as mixed definition,
> but Tero did not quite like that)) :-)

I've tested both versions with gcc 4.7.3 [1] and 4.8.5 [2]. With 4.7.3 my 
version is 4 bytes longer, and with 4.8.5 it's 4 bytes shorter. Interestingly 
enough the "break + test after loop" pattern doesn't make a difference, it's 
only the intermediate variable that results in changes to the generated code.

[1] arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc (crosstool-NG 
linaro-1.13.1-4.7-2013.02-01-20130221 - Linaro GCC 2013.02) 4.7.3 20130205 
(prerelease)

[2] arm-buildroot-linux-uclibcgnueabihf-gcc.br_real (Buildroot 2016.08-dirty) 
4.8.5

> Also, checked if the same values are
> written to clk as with my patch, so here's my:
> Tested-by: Ladislav Michl <[e-mail]>

Stephen Boyd Dec. 8, 2016, 12:16 a.m. UTC | #6

On 12/05, Tero Kristo wrote:
> On 05/12/16 13:08, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >Hi Ladislav,
> >
> >On Monday 05 Dec 2016 10:36:49 Ladislav Michl wrote:
> >>On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:46:43AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>On Monday 05 Dec 2016 09:22:10 Ladislav Michl wrote:
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>>Table 36 list two options with 26MHz clocks: m=443, n=11 and m=480, n=12
> >>>>with a statement: "The choice between these two options with a 26 MHz
> >>>>input should be based on characterization on the end system."
> >>>>
> >>>>Shall we care about that?
> >>>
> >>>I'd like to, but at the moment I don't see how. Proposals are welcome :-)
> >>>I
> >>
> >>One of proposals raised earlier was DT property, but that idea was scratched
> >>later.
> >
> >It might not be such a bad idea, given that the decision should be made based
> >on the characterization of the whole system. One could argue that such
> >platform information could have its place in DT.
> >
> >>>don't think addressing that issue should be a blocker to get this patch
> >>>merged though.
> >>
> >>Of course not. I'd like to even see it in stable ;-)
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>I had tried that, but I find the code less readable :-S
> >>
> >>Oh... Please reconsider (I really do not like that extra test and extra
> >>assignment to local variables (also I had 'precomputed' as mixed definition,
> >>but Tero did not quite like that)) :-)
> >
> >I still like to favour code readability when possible (especially when the
> >compiler should optimize both versions the same way). I'm not the maintainer
> >of this driver though, so I'll let Tero decides what he prefers.
> 
> The compiler should ideally generate same size code for these both.
> Personally, I don't mind which version goes in; I'd say both are as
> readable.
> 
> Stephen, Mike, is one of you going to pick this up? I don't think I
> have anything else to pull due to the ongoing discussion with the
> other pending stuff.
> 

I have no problem picking up either version. Please send it with
the appropriate tags added and I can merge it.

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c b/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c
index 88f2ce8..cd22bcc 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/ti/dpll3xxx.c
@@ -838,3 +838,67 @@  int omap3_dpll4_set_rate_and_parent(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
 	return omap3_noncore_dpll_set_rate_and_parent(hw, rate, parent_rate,
 						      index);
 }
+
+/* Apply DM3730 errata sprz319 advisory 2.1. */
+static bool omap3_dpll5_apply_errata(struct clk_hw *hw,
+				     unsigned long parent_rate)
+{
+	struct omap3_dpll5_settings {
+		unsigned int rate, m, n;
+	};
+
+	static const struct omap3_dpll5_settings precomputed[] = {
+		/*
+		 * From DM3730 errata advisory 2.1, table 35 and 36.
+		 * The N value is increased by 1 compared to the tables as the
+		 * errata lists register values while last_rounded_field is the
+		 * real divider value.
+		 */
+		{ 12000000,  80,  0 + 1 },
+		{ 13000000, 443,  5 + 1 },
+		{ 19200000,  50,  0 + 1 },
+		{ 26000000, 443, 11 + 1 },
+		{ 38400000,  25,  0 + 1 }
+	};
+
+	struct clk_hw_omap *clk;
+	struct dpll_data *dd;
+	unsigned int i;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(precomputed); i++)
+		if (parent_rate == precomputed[i].rate) {
+			clk = to_clk_hw_omap(hw);
+			/* Update the M, N and rounded rate values */
+			dd = clk->dpll_data;
+			dd->last_rounded_m = precomputed[i].m;
+			dd->last_rounded_n = precomputed[i].n;
+			dd->last_rounded_rate =
+				div_u64((u64)parent_rate * dd->last_rounded_m,
+					dd->last_rounded_n);
+			omap3_noncore_dpll_program(clk, 0);
+
+			return true;
+		}
+
+	return false;
+}

> +/**
> + * omap3_dpll5_set_rate - set rate for omap3 dpll5
> + * @hw: clock to change
> + * @rate: target rate for clock
> + * @parent_rate: rate of the parent clock
> + *
> + * Set rate for the DPLL5 clock. Apply the sprz319 advisory 2.1 on OMAP36xx if
> + * the DPLL is used for USB host (detected through the requested rate).
> + */
> +int omap3_dpll5_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> +			 unsigned long parent_rate)
> +{
> +	if (rate == OMAP3_DPLL5_FREQ_FOR_USBHOST * 8) {
> +		if (omap3_dpll5_apply_errata(hw, parent_rate))
> +			return 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	return omap3_noncore_dpll_set_rate(hw, rate, parent_rate);
> +}