Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:01:05 +0530 | From | Prashant Gaikwad <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] clk: tegra: T114: add DFLL DVCO reset control |
| |
On Friday 07 June 2013 10:36 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 06/07/2013 06:19 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote: >>> Add DFLL DVCO reset line control functions to the CAR IP block driver. >>> >>> The DVCO present in the DFLL IP block has a separate reset line, >>> exposed via the CAR IP block. This reset line is asserted upon SoC >>> reset. Unless something (such as the DFLL driver) deasserts this >>> line, the DVCO will not oscillate, although reads and writes to the >>> DFLL IP block will complete. >>> >>> Thanks to Aleksandr Frid <afrid@nvidia.com> for identifying this and >>> saving hours of debugging time. >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.h b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.h >>> void tegra114_clock_tune_cpu_trimmers_high(void); >>> void tegra114_clock_tune_cpu_trimmers_low(void); >>> void tegra114_clock_tune_cpu_trimmers_init(void); >>> +void tegra114_clock_assert_dfll_dvco_reset(void); >>> +void tegra114_clock_deassert_dfll_dvco_reset(void); >> Where/what is the code that will call these new APIs? If it's going to >> be something in drivers/clk, that seems fine. > That's correct - they'll be used by the DFLL clocksource code, which will > live in drivers/clk/tegra. You've seen the patches already ;-)
Why not implement these APIs in DFLL clock driver itself and pass RST address register to driver?
>> The reset assert/de-assert functions at least might be worth exposing >> using the new generic module reset API. I believe Prashant Gaikwad is >> working on converting the Tegra clock driver to be a module reset >> provider, hence removing the existing custom >> tegra_periph_reset_{de,}assert() APIs. > OK, will take a look to see if this can be done without getting in the way > of Prashant's work. I'd naïvely assume that it might be best to convert > these as part of his series - that way we won't duplicate effort. > > Prashant, what stage are you at in the conversion? If you're close to > completion, maybe we can just add this functionality in with your patches? >
You can continue with this patch. I do not see any need to add this reset control to generic reset module.
> - Paul
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |