Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Feb 2023 12:37:13 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] clk: qcom: lpassaudiocc-sc7280: Merge lpasscc into lpass_aon | From | Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu <> |
| |
On 2/1/2023 1:56 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: Thanks for your time Stephen!!! > Quoting Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu (2023-01-31 01:29:16) >> On 1/31/2023 6:34 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> Thanks for your Time Stephen!!! >>> Quoting Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu (2023-01-26 02:14:24) >>>> Merge lpasscc clocks into lpass_aon clk_regmap structure as they >>>> are using same register space. >>>> Add conditional check for doing lpasscc clock registration only >>>> if regname specified in device tree node. >>>> In existing implementation, lpasscc clocks and lpass_aon clocks are >>>> being registered exclusively and overlapping if both of them are >>>> to be used. >>>> This is required to avoid such overlapping and to register >>>> lpasscc clocks and lpass_aon clocks simultaneously. >>> Can you describe the register ranges that are overlapping? >> Okay. Will add register ranges in description. > Thanks! > >>> Here's what I see in DT right now: >>> >>> lpasscc: lpasscc@3000000 { >>> compatible = "qcom,sc7280-lpasscc"; >>> reg = <0 0x03000000 0 0x40>, >>> <0 0x03c04000 0 0x4>; >>> ... >>> }; >>> >>> lpass_audiocc: clock-controller@3300000 { >>> compatible = "qcom,sc7280-lpassaudiocc"; >>> reg = <0 0x03300000 0 0x30000>, >>> <0 0x032a9000 0 0x1000>; >>> ... >>> }; >>> >>> lpass_aon: clock-controller@3380000 { >>> compatible = "qcom,sc7280-lpassaoncc"; >>> reg = <0 0x03380000 0 0x30000>; >>> ... >>> }; >>> >>> lpass_core: clock-controller@3900000 { >>> compatible = "qcom,sc7280-lpasscorecc"; >>> reg = <0 0x03900000 0 0x50000>; >>> ... >>> }; >>> >>> Presumably lpascc is really supposed to be a node named >>> 'clock-controller' and is the node that is overlapping with lpass_aon? >> Okay. As it's been coming previous patches, didn't change the name. >> >> May be we need to do it as separate patch. > Sure, another patch to rename lpasscc to clock-controller would be > appreciated. > >> Yes. It's overlapping with lpass_aon ( <0 0x03380000 0 0x30000>). >> >> CC clocks range is <0 0x03389000 0 0x24>; > Is that a new register range for lpasscc? Why do we have that node at > all? Can we add different properties to the existing lpass_audiocc, > lpass_aon, or lpass_core nodes to indicate what clks should or shouldn't > be registered or provided to the kernel?
It's not new register range. They are actually AHBM and AHBS clock registers within lpass_aon regmap range.
Here what I meant lpasscc clocks are not of lpasscc node. I am sorry to make you confused.
As the reg-name used as "CC", mentioning it as lpasscc clocks. I will rephrase commit message and re-post.
Previously these two clocks are registered separately. Now we are merging them into lpass_aon clk reg space.
> >>>> Fixes: 4ab43d171181 ("clk: qcom: Add lpass clock controller driver for SC7280") >>>> Signed-off-by: Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu <quic_srivasam@quicinc.com> >>>> Tested-by: Mohammad Rafi Shaik <quic_mohs@quicinc.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/clk/qcom/lpassaudiocc-sc7280.c | 13 +++++++++---- >>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/lpassaudiocc-sc7280.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/lpassaudiocc-sc7280.c >>>> index 1339f92..8e2f433 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/lpassaudiocc-sc7280.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/lpassaudiocc-sc7280.c >>>> @@ -826,10 +829,12 @@ static int lpass_aon_cc_sc7280_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> return ret; >>>> >>>> if (of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, "qcom,adsp-pil-mode")) { >>>> - lpass_audio_cc_sc7280_regmap_config.name = "cc"; >>>> - desc = &lpass_cc_sc7280_desc; >>>> - ret = qcom_cc_probe(pdev, desc); >>>> - goto exit; >>>> + res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "cc"); >>> We shouldn't need to check for reg-name property. Instead, the index >>> should be the only thing that matters. >> As qcom_cc_probe() function is mapping the zero index reg property, and >> >> in next implementation qcom_cc_really_probe() is also probing zero index >> reg property, >> >> unable to map the same region twice. > Use qcom_cc_probe_by_index()?
With this, if we mention some index and if it's not present in DT, it will return error.
Is it okay if error is ignored and proceed?
> >> Hence all I want here is to skip this cc clock probing by keeping some >> check. >> >> If we remove, it may cause ABI break. >> > I'm not sure what you mean here about ABI break, but hopefully just > using qcom_cc_probe_by_index() works!
| |