On 12/21/16 5:05 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 12/19, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 12/17/16 7:57 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Stephen Boyd sboyd@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 12/15, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
Clients use devm_clk_get() with a "pmc_plt_clk_<n>" argument.
This is the problem. Clients should be calling clk_get() like:
clk_get(dev, "signal name in datasheet")where the first argument is the device and the second argument is some string that is meaningful to the device, not the system as a whole. The way clkdev is intended is so that the dev argument's dev_name() is combined with the con_id that matches some signale name in the datasheet. This way when the same IP is put into some other chip, the globally unique name doesn't need to change, just the device name that's registered with the lookup. Obviously this breaks down quite badly when dev_name() isn't stable. Is that happening here?
PMC Atom is a PCI device and thus each platform would have different dev_name(). Do you want to list all in each consumer if consumer wants to work on all of them or I missed something?
So, the question is how clock getting will look like to work on currently both CherryTrail and BayTrail.
The name pmc_plt_clk_<n> follows the data sheet specification, where this convention is suggested: PLT_CLK[2:0] - Camera PLT_CLK[3] - Audio Codec PLT_CLK[4] - PLT_CLK[5] - COMMs
These clocks are not internal but are made available to external components through dedicated physical pins on the package, this external visibility limits the scope for confusions, variations. I have not seen any skews where these clocks and pins were changed at all.
Ok, by clkdev design if a device is passed but there isn't a match in the lookup table it allows it to match based solely on the connection id. Given that the connection id is globally unique this will work.
Hopefully we don't have two of these devices with pmc_plt_clk_<n> signals in a single system though. Then having the device name would help differentiate between the two. And then it may make sense to have some sort of ACPI lookup system, similar to how we have lookups for clks in DT.
So in short we keep the existing solution for now and will only use the device name if and when the pmc_plt_clk_<n> identifier is no longer unique due to hardware changes. Did I get this right?