-----Original Message----- From: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Boyd Sent: 15 September, 2016 0:30 To: Tirdea, Irina Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org; Michael Turquette; alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; Mark Brown; Takashi Iwai; Bossart, Pierre-louis; Pierre- Louis Bossart Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] clk: x86: Add Atom PMC platform clocks
On 09/09, Irina Tirdea wrote:
The BayTrail and CherryTrail platforms provide platform clocks through their Power Management Controller (PMC).
The SoC supports up to 6 clocks (PMC_PLT_CLK[5:0]) with a frequency of either 19.2 MHz (PLL) or 25 MHz (XTAL) for BayTrail an a frequency of 19.2 MHz (XTAL) for CherryTrail. These clocks are available for general system use, where appropriate, and each have Control & Frequency register fields associated with them.
For example, the usage for platform clocks suggested in the datasheet is the following: PLT_CLK[2:0] - Camera PLT_CLK[3] - Audio Codec PLT_CLK[4] - PLT_CLK[5] - COMMs
Signed-off-by: Irina Tirdea irina.tirdea@intel.com Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com
Notes: Submitting this patch through the clock tree as requested by Mark Brown. This patch specifically enables the audio MCLK required by Baytrail CR devices (support already merged in Mark's tree)
Changes from v2:
- move clk platform data structures to a separate include file
- store clk_hw pointer for the fixed rate clocks
Changes from v1:
- register the clk device as child of pmc device
- pass iomem pointer from pmc driver to clk driver to avoid using
pmc_atom_read()/write() and use readl/writel API instead
- use devm_clk_hw_register/clkdev_hw_create instead of
clk_register/clkdev_create
arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 + arch/x86/include/asm/pmc_atom.h | 3 + arch/x86/platform/atom/pmc_atom.c | 78 +++++-
Will there be problems if this merges through clk tree? If so we could take the clk driver part and the platform data include part could be duplicated into both trees. Or clk tree could be pulled into x86?
The patch looks fine to me.
Adding the x86 list and maintainers to this thread, as they should be able to answer this question. I already sent a new version of this patch, this time also including the x86 platform list and maintainers [1].
Thanks, Irina