| Message ID | 1484028930-20305-2-git-send-email-zhengxing@rock-chips.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi, On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> wrote: > The structure rockchip_clk_provider needs to refer the GRF regmap > in somewhere, if the CRU node has not "rockchip,grf" property, > calling syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle will return an invalid GRF > regmap, and the MUXGRF type clock will be not supported. > > Therefore, we need to add them. > > Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> > --- > > Changes in v4: > - separte the binding patch > > Changes in v3: > - add optional roperty rockchip,grf in rockchip,rk3399-cru.txt > > Changes in v2: > - referring pmugrf for PMUGRU > - fix the typo "invaild" in COMMIT message > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) This seems fine to me, so: Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> ...but I will say that before you actually add any real "MUXGRF" clocks on rk3399 you _might_ need to rework the code to make things truly "optional". If it turns out that any existing clocks that already exist today already go through one of these muxes in the GRF and we've always been assuming one setting of the mux, we'll need to make sure we keep assuming that setting of the mux even if the "grf" isn't specified. As I understand it, your motivation for this patch is to eventually be able to model the EDP reference clock which can either be xin24 or "edp osc". Presumably the eDP "reference clock" isn't related to any of the pre-existing eDP clocks so that one should be safe. -Doug
Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 10:45:48 schrieb Doug Anderson: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> wrote: > > The structure rockchip_clk_provider needs to refer the GRF regmap > > in somewhere, if the CRU node has not "rockchip,grf" property, > > calling syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle will return an invalid GRF > > regmap, and the MUXGRF type clock will be not supported. > > > > Therefore, we need to add them. > > > > Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> > > --- > > > > Changes in v4: > > - separte the binding patch > > > > Changes in v3: > > - add optional roperty rockchip,grf in rockchip,rk3399-cru.txt > > > > Changes in v2: > > - referring pmugrf for PMUGRU > > - fix the typo "invaild" in COMMIT message > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > This seems fine to me, so: > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > ...but I will say that before you actually add any real "MUXGRF" > clocks on rk3399 you _might_ need to rework the code to make things > truly "optional". If it turns out that any existing clocks that > already exist today already go through one of these muxes in the GRF > and we've always been assuming one setting of the mux, we'll need to > make sure we keep assuming that setting of the mux even if the "grf" > isn't specified. I guess I see that a bit more relaxed :-) . I.e. the GRF being optional is a remnant of syscons not being available when the clocks get set up- so were coming in later or not at all. For the rk3288 I converted, there we never really had the case of the GRF missing. And the GRF mux for the vcodec now present is not being used by anything yet (neither driver nor binding), so no old devicetree can break. > As I understand it, your motivation for this patch is to eventually be > able to model the EDP reference clock which can either be xin24 or > "edp osc". Presumably the eDP "reference clock" isn't related to any > of the pre-existing eDP clocks so that one should be safe. Same here, so far we don't even have edp or even any other graphical output on the rk3399, so again there is no old devicetree that could break when the grf is not specified. So, for me that looks good. Heiko
Hi Doug, Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 20:46:12 schrieb Heiko Stübner: > Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 10:45:48 schrieb Doug Anderson: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> > > wrote: > > > The structure rockchip_clk_provider needs to refer the GRF regmap > > > in somewhere, if the CRU node has not "rockchip,grf" property, > > > calling syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle will return an invalid GRF > > > regmap, and the MUXGRF type clock will be not supported. > > > > > > Therefore, we need to add them. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> > > > --- > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > - separte the binding patch > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > - add optional roperty rockchip,grf in rockchip,rk3399-cru.txt > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > - referring pmugrf for PMUGRU > > > - fix the typo "invaild" in COMMIT message > > > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > This seems fine to me, so: > > > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > > > ...but I will say that before you actually add any real "MUXGRF" > > clocks on rk3399 you _might_ need to rework the code to make things > > truly "optional". If it turns out that any existing clocks that > > already exist today already go through one of these muxes in the GRF > > and we've always been assuming one setting of the mux, we'll need to > > make sure we keep assuming that setting of the mux even if the "grf" > > isn't specified. > > I guess I see that a bit more relaxed :-) . > > I.e. the GRF being optional is a remnant of syscons not being available when > the clocks get set up- so were coming in later or not at all. For the > rk3288 I converted, there we never really had the case of the GRF missing. > > And the GRF mux for the vcodec now present is not being used by anything yet > (neither driver nor binding), so no old devicetree can break. > > > As I understand it, your motivation for this patch is to eventually be > > able to model the EDP reference clock which can either be xin24 or > > "edp osc". Presumably the eDP "reference clock" isn't related to any > > of the pre-existing eDP clocks so that one should be safe. > > Same here, so far we don't even have edp or even any other graphical output > on the rk3399, so again there is no old devicetree that could break when > the grf is not specified. reading all of the above again, it feels like you essentially also said similar things already in your original reply and I misread some of it. But again, I don't see the need for any more code right now, as hopefully the simple stuff we currently only support does not have any grf-based muxes in it. Xing + Rockchip people, please correct me if I'm wrong here :-) Heiko
Hi Doug, On 2017年01月11日 02:45, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> wrote: >> The structure rockchip_clk_provider needs to refer the GRF regmap >> in somewhere, if the CRU node has not "rockchip,grf" property, >> calling syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle will return an invalid GRF >> regmap, and the MUXGRF type clock will be not supported. >> >> Therefore, we need to add them. >> >> Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> >> --- >> >> Changes in v4: >> - separte the binding patch >> >> Changes in v3: >> - add optional roperty rockchip,grf in rockchip,rk3399-cru.txt >> >> Changes in v2: >> - referring pmugrf for PMUGRU >> - fix the typo "invaild" in COMMIT message >> >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > This seems fine to me, so: > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > ...but I will say that before you actually add any real "MUXGRF" > clocks on rk3399 you _might_ need to rework the code to make things > truly "optional". If it turns out that any existing clocks that > already exist today already go through one of these muxes in the GRF > and we've always been assuming one setting of the mux, we'll need to > make sure we keep assuming that setting of the mux even if the "grf" > isn't specified. > > As I understand it, your motivation for this patch is to eventually be > able to model the EDP reference clock which can either be xin24 or > "edp osc". Presumably the eDP "reference clock" isn't related to any > of the pre-existing eDP clocks so that one should be safe. Hmm... I had intended to use this patch for EDP reference clock, but we don't need to change the parent clock (see the BUG: 61664). I just woud like to add this patch to avoid getting some unavailable MUXGRF clock and need to debug it again, if we support it one day in future. Thanks.
Am Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2017, 09:04:24 CET schrieb Xing Zheng: > Hi Doug, > > On 2017年01月11日 02:45, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> wrote: > >> The structure rockchip_clk_provider needs to refer the GRF regmap > >> in somewhere, if the CRU node has not "rockchip,grf" property, > >> calling syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle will return an invalid GRF > >> regmap, and the MUXGRF type clock will be not supported. > >> > >> Therefore, we need to add them. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> > >> --- > >> > >> Changes in v4: > >> - separte the binding patch > >> > >> Changes in v3: > >> - add optional roperty rockchip,grf in rockchip,rk3399-cru.txt > >> > >> Changes in v2: > >> - referring pmugrf for PMUGRU > >> - fix the typo "invaild" in COMMIT message > >> > >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 2 ++ > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > This seems fine to me, so: > > > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > > > ...but I will say that before you actually add any real "MUXGRF" > > clocks on rk3399 you _might_ need to rework the code to make things > > truly "optional". If it turns out that any existing clocks that > > already exist today already go through one of these muxes in the GRF > > and we've always been assuming one setting of the mux, we'll need to > > make sure we keep assuming that setting of the mux even if the "grf" > > isn't specified. > > > > As I understand it, your motivation for this patch is to eventually be > > able to model the EDP reference clock which can either be xin24 or > > "edp osc". Presumably the eDP "reference clock" isn't related to any > > of the pre-existing eDP clocks so that one should be safe. > > Hmm... I had intended to use this patch for EDP reference clock, but we > don't need to change the parent > clock (see the BUG: 61664). Yep that sounds ok. As I said in my replies, we don't support the edp in the mainline kernel yet, so nothing old can break here :-) > I just woud like to add this patch to avoid getting some unavailable > MUXGRF clock and need to debug it again, > if we support it one day in future. could you just check, if we have any other grf-based muxes that we may need in the future. Right now I only see pclkin_isp1_wrapper describing such a mux, but it would be cool if you could check again. Thanks Heiko
Hi Heiko, On 2017年01月11日 09:12, Heiko Stuebner wrote: >> I just woud like to add this patch to avoid getting some unavailable >> MUXGRF clock and need to debug it again, >> if we support it one day in future. > could you just check, if we have any other grf-based muxes that we may need in > the future. Right now I only see pclkin_isp1_wrapper describing such a mux, > but it would be cool if you could check again. > > OK, we will check these. :) Thanks.
Hi, On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: > Hi Doug, > > Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 20:46:12 schrieb Heiko Stübner: >> Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 10:45:48 schrieb Doug Anderson: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> >> >> wrote: >> > > The structure rockchip_clk_provider needs to refer the GRF regmap >> > > in somewhere, if the CRU node has not "rockchip,grf" property, >> > > calling syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle will return an invalid GRF >> > > regmap, and the MUXGRF type clock will be not supported. >> > > >> > > Therefore, we need to add them. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> >> > > --- >> > > >> > > Changes in v4: >> > > - separte the binding patch >> > > >> > > Changes in v3: >> > > - add optional roperty rockchip,grf in rockchip,rk3399-cru.txt >> > > >> > > Changes in v2: >> > > - referring pmugrf for PMUGRU >> > > - fix the typo "invaild" in COMMIT message >> > > >> > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 2 ++ >> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> > >> > This seems fine to me, so: >> > >> > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> >> > >> > ...but I will say that before you actually add any real "MUXGRF" >> > clocks on rk3399 you _might_ need to rework the code to make things >> > truly "optional". If it turns out that any existing clocks that >> > already exist today already go through one of these muxes in the GRF >> > and we've always been assuming one setting of the mux, we'll need to >> > make sure we keep assuming that setting of the mux even if the "grf" >> > isn't specified. >> >> I guess I see that a bit more relaxed :-) . >> >> I.e. the GRF being optional is a remnant of syscons not being available when >> the clocks get set up- so were coming in later or not at all. For the >> rk3288 I converted, there we never really had the case of the GRF missing. >> >> And the GRF mux for the vcodec now present is not being used by anything yet >> (neither driver nor binding), so no old devicetree can break. >> >> > As I understand it, your motivation for this patch is to eventually be >> > able to model the EDP reference clock which can either be xin24 or >> > "edp osc". Presumably the eDP "reference clock" isn't related to any >> > of the pre-existing eDP clocks so that one should be safe. >> >> Same here, so far we don't even have edp or even any other graphical output >> on the rk3399, so again there is no old devicetree that could break when >> the grf is not specified. > > reading all of the above again, it feels like you essentially also said > similar things already in your original reply and I misread some of it. > > But again, I don't see the need for any more code right now, as hopefully the > simple stuff we currently only support does not have any grf-based muxes in > it. Xing + Rockchip people, please correct me if I'm wrong here :-) Right. I have no objection to Xing's patch. I just want to make sure that if it's listed as "Optional" that it's really optional. I was worried that we would introduce some GRF-based mux in the _middle_ of some existing clock tree because we simply didn't model the mux before and assumed one particular setting. If nothing like that ever happens then we're fine. Sorry to be so confusing. -Doug
Am Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2017, 16:50:10 CET schrieb Doug Anderson: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: > > Hi Doug, > > > > Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 20:46:12 schrieb Heiko Stübner: > >> Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 10:45:48 schrieb Doug Anderson: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > > The structure rockchip_clk_provider needs to refer the GRF regmap > >> > > in somewhere, if the CRU node has not "rockchip,grf" property, > >> > > calling syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle will return an invalid GRF > >> > > regmap, and the MUXGRF type clock will be not supported. > >> > > > >> > > Therefore, we need to add them. > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> > >> > > --- > >> > > > >> > > Changes in v4: > >> > > - separte the binding patch > >> > > > >> > > Changes in v3: > >> > > - add optional roperty rockchip,grf in rockchip,rk3399-cru.txt > >> > > > >> > > Changes in v2: > >> > > - referring pmugrf for PMUGRU > >> > > - fix the typo "invaild" in COMMIT message > >> > > > >> > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 2 ++ > >> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >> > > >> > This seems fine to me, so: > >> > > >> > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > >> > > >> > ...but I will say that before you actually add any real "MUXGRF" > >> > clocks on rk3399 you _might_ need to rework the code to make things > >> > truly "optional". If it turns out that any existing clocks that > >> > already exist today already go through one of these muxes in the GRF > >> > and we've always been assuming one setting of the mux, we'll need to > >> > make sure we keep assuming that setting of the mux even if the "grf" > >> > isn't specified. > >> > >> I guess I see that a bit more relaxed :-) . > >> > >> I.e. the GRF being optional is a remnant of syscons not being available > >> when the clocks get set up- so were coming in later or not at all. For > >> the rk3288 I converted, there we never really had the case of the GRF > >> missing. > >> > >> And the GRF mux for the vcodec now present is not being used by anything > >> yet (neither driver nor binding), so no old devicetree can break. > >> > >> > As I understand it, your motivation for this patch is to eventually be > >> > able to model the EDP reference clock which can either be xin24 or > >> > "edp osc". Presumably the eDP "reference clock" isn't related to any > >> > of the pre-existing eDP clocks so that one should be safe. > >> > >> Same here, so far we don't even have edp or even any other graphical > >> output > >> on the rk3399, so again there is no old devicetree that could break when > >> the grf is not specified. > > > > reading all of the above again, it feels like you essentially also said > > similar things already in your original reply and I misread some of it. > > > > But again, I don't see the need for any more code right now, as hopefully > > the simple stuff we currently only support does not have any grf-based > > muxes in it. Xing + Rockchip people, please correct me if I'm wrong here > > :-) > Right. I have no objection to Xing's patch. I just want to make sure > that if it's listed as "Optional" that it's really optional. > > I was worried that we would introduce some GRF-based mux in the > _middle_ of some existing clock tree because we simply didn't model > the mux before and assumed one particular setting. If nothing like > that ever happens then we're fine. Thankfully the clock diagrams on the old socs were pretty verbose, listing all grf-based clocks as well. For example the rk3288 seems to have two and it seems I've been carrying dummy definitions for those from the time I did the initial clock tree [0]. And thankfully grf-based clocks somehow always only get used for more "esotheric" components like vcodec and iep on the rk3288 :-) . Heiko [0] https://github.com/mmind/linux-rockchip/blob/devel/workbench/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3288.c lines 371 and 799 .. looks like I'll need to add the iep clock as well at some point.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi index c928015..081621b 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi @@ -1077,6 +1077,7 @@ pmucru: pmu-clock-controller@ff750000 { compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-pmucru"; reg = <0x0 0xff750000 0x0 0x1000>; + rockchip,grf = <&pmugrf>; #clock-cells = <1>; #reset-cells = <1>; assigned-clocks = <&pmucru PLL_PPLL>; @@ -1086,6 +1087,7 @@ cru: clock-controller@ff760000 { compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-cru"; reg = <0x0 0xff760000 0x0 0x1000>; + rockchip,grf = <&grf>; #clock-cells = <1>; #reset-cells = <1>; assigned-clocks =
The structure rockchip_clk_provider needs to refer the GRF regmap in somewhere, if the CRU node has not "rockchip,grf" property, calling syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle will return an invalid GRF regmap, and the MUXGRF type clock will be not supported. Therefore, we need to add them. Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> --- Changes in v4: - separte the binding patch Changes in v3: - add optional roperty rockchip,grf in rockchip,rk3399-cru.txt Changes in v2: - referring pmugrf for PMUGRU - fix the typo "invaild" in COMMIT message arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)