[PATCH 03/12] drm/msm/dsi: Add DSI PLL for 28nm 8960 PHY

[Archit Taneja]

On 10/15/2015 02:05 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 10/14, Archit Taneja wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_28nm_8960.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_28nm_8960.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..e71b4ee
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/pll/dsi_pll_28nm_8960.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,529 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (c) 2012-2015, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 and
>> + * only version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> + *
>> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/clk.h>
>
> Is this include used?

It isn't. I'll remove it.

>
>> +#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>> +
>> +#include "dsi_pll.h"
>> +#include "dsi.xml.h"
>> +
>> +/*
> [..]
>> +
>> +#define to_pll_28nm(x)	container_of(x, struct dsi_pll_28nm, base)
>> +
>> +static bool pll_28nm_poll_for_ready(struct dsi_pll_28nm *pll_28nm,
>> +				    u32 nb_tries, u32 timeout_us)
>
> Why not use unsigned types for these counts? I don't imagine we
> care about being precisely 32 bits.

Yeah. We don't even need an unsigned type. I'll replace it with integer 
type.

>
>> +{
>> +	bool pll_locked = false;
>> +	u32 val;
>> +
> [..]
>> +	DBG("id=%d", pll_28nm->id);
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * before enabling the PLL, configure the bit clock divider since we
>> +	 * don't expose it as a clock to the outside world
>> +	 * 1: read back the byte clock divider that should aready be set
>
> s/aready/already/

Thanks, I'll fix this.

>
>> +	 * 2: divide by 8 to get bit clock divider
>> +	 * 3: write it to POSTDIV1
>> +	 */
>> +	val = pll_read(base + REG_DSI_28nm_8960_PHY_PLL_CTRL_9);
>> +	byte_div = val + 1;
>> +	bit_div = byte_div / 8;
>> +
>> +	val = pll_read(base + REG_DSI_28nm_8960_PHY_PLL_CTRL_8);
> [..]
>> +
>> +static void dsi_pll_28nm_destroy(struct msm_dsi_pll *pll)
>> +{
>> +	struct dsi_pll_28nm *pll_28nm = to_pll_28nm(pll);
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	msm_dsi_pll_helper_unregister_clks(pll_28nm->pdev,
>> +					pll_28nm->clks, pll_28nm->num_clks);
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < NUM_PROVIDED_CLKS; i++)
>> +		pll_28nm->provided_clks[i] = NULL;
>> +
>> +	pll_28nm->num_clks = 0;
>> +	pll_28nm->clk_data.clks = NULL;
>> +	pll_28nm->clk_data.clk_num = 0;
>
> Is all this really necessary?

It isn't. I copy pasted from dsi_pll_28nm.c and it had this. Will make
a patch to remove it from that file too.

>
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int pll_28nm_register(struct dsi_pll_28nm *pll_28nm)
>> +{
>> +	char clk_name[32], parent[32], vco_name[32];
>> +	struct clk_init_data vco_init = {
>> +		.parent_names = (const char *[]){ "pxo" },
>> +		.num_parents = 1,
>> +		.name = vco_name,
>> +		.ops = &clk_ops_dsi_pll_28nm_vco,
>> +	};
>> +	struct device *dev = &pll_28nm->pdev->dev;
>> +	struct clk **clks = pll_28nm->clks;
>> +	struct clk **provided_clks = pll_28nm->provided_clks;
>> +	struct clk_bytediv *bytediv;
>> +	struct clk_init_data bytediv_init;
>
>
> 	struct clk_init_data bytediv_init = { };
>
> Just in case we add some new field there?

Will do.

>
>> +	int ret, num = 0;
>> +
>> +	DBG("%d", pll_28nm->id);
>> +
>> +	bytediv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*bytediv), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!bytediv)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +	pll_28nm->bytediv = bytediv;
>> +
>> +	snprintf(vco_name, 32, "dsi%dvco_clk", pll_28nm->id);
>> +	pll_28nm->base.clk_hw.init = &vco_init;
>> +
>> +	clks[num++] = clk_register(dev, &pll_28nm->base.clk_hw);
>> +
>> +	/* prepare and register bytediv */
>> +	bytediv->hw.init = &bytediv_init;
>> +	bytediv->reg = pll_28nm->mmio + REG_DSI_28nm_8960_PHY_PLL_CTRL_9;
>> +
>> +	snprintf(parent, 32, "dsi%dvco_clk", pll_28nm->id);
>> +	snprintf(clk_name, 32, "dsi%dpllbyte", pll_28nm->id);
>> +
>> +	bytediv_init.name = clk_name;
>> +	bytediv_init.ops = &clk_bytediv_ops;
>> +	bytediv_init.flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT;
>> +	bytediv_init.parent_names = (const char *[]) { parent };
>
> Can't we just do &parent instead of this anonymous array?

&parent doesn't make sense here. parent in this function is an array
of characters, not a pointer to a character.

I can think of only this way. We do something similar when we call
clk_register_mux() in dsi_pll_28nm.c.

Archit

>
>> +	bytediv_init.num_parents = 1;
>> +
>> +	/* DIV2 */
>

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora 
Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation