[PATCH v6 5/8] clk: clock-wizard: Add support for fractional support

Stephen Boyd sboyd at kernel.org
Mon Sep 21 21:17:38 UTC 2020


Quoting Shubhrajyoti Datta (2020-08-28 06:39:53)
> Currently the set rate granularity is to integral divisors.
> Add support for the fractional divisors.
> Only the first output0 is fractional in the hardware.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta at xilinx.com>

Getting closer.

> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-xlnx-clock-wizard.c b/drivers/clk/clk-xlnx-clock-wizard.c
> index 8dfcec8..1af59a4 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-xlnx-clock-wizard.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-xlnx-clock-wizard.c
> @@ -185,6 +191,134 @@ static const struct clk_ops clk_wzrd_clk_divider_ops = {
>         .recalc_rate = clk_wzrd_recalc_rate,
>  };
>  
> +static unsigned long clk_wzrd_recalc_ratef(struct clk_hw *hw,
> +                                          unsigned long parent_rate)
> +{
> +       unsigned int val;
> +       u32 div, frac;
> +       struct clk_wzrd_divider *divider = to_clk_wzrd_divider(hw);
> +       void __iomem *div_addr = divider->base + divider->offset;
> +
> +       val = readl(div_addr);
> +       div = val & div_mask(divider->width);
> +       frac = (val >> WZRD_CLKOUT_FRAC_SHIFT) & WZRD_CLKOUT_FRAC_MASK;
> +
> +       return ((parent_rate * 1000) / ((div * 1000) + frac));

Please remove extra parenthesis. And is this mult_frac()?

> +}
> +
> +static int clk_wzrd_dynamic_reconfig_f(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> +                                      unsigned long parent_rate)
> +{
> +       int err;
> +       u32 value, pre;
> +       unsigned long rate_div, f, clockout0_div;
> +       struct clk_wzrd_divider *divider = to_clk_wzrd_divider(hw);
> +       void __iomem *div_addr = divider->base + divider->offset;
> +
> +       rate_div = ((parent_rate * 1000) / rate);
> +       clockout0_div = rate_div / 1000;
> +
> +       pre = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST((parent_rate * 1000), rate);
> +       f = (u32)(pre - (clockout0_div * 1000));
> +       f = f & WZRD_CLKOUT_FRAC_MASK;
> +
> +       value = ((f << WZRD_CLKOUT_DIVIDE_WIDTH) | (clockout0_div &
> +                       WZRD_CLKOUT_DIVIDE_MASK));

Please split this to multiple lines.

> +
> +       /* Set divisor and clear phase offset */
> +       writel(value, div_addr);
> +       writel(0x0, div_addr + WZRD_DR_DIV_TO_PHASE_OFFSET);
> +
> +       /* Check status register */
> +       err= readl_poll_timeout(divider->base + WZRD_DR_STATUS_REG_OFFSET, value,
> +                               value & WZRD_DR_LOCK_BIT_MASK,
> +                               WZRD_USEC_POLL, WZRD_TIMEOUT_POLL);
> +       if (err)
> +               return err;
> +
> +       /* Initiate reconfiguration */
> +       writel(WZRD_DR_BEGIN_DYNA_RECONF,
> +              divider->base + WZRD_DR_INIT_REG_OFFSET);
> +
> +       /* Check status register */
> +       err= readl_poll_timeout(divider->base + WZRD_DR_STATUS_REG_OFFSET, value,
> +                               value & WZRD_DR_LOCK_BIT_MASK,
> +                               WZRD_USEC_POLL, WZRD_TIMEOUT_POLL);
> +
> +       return err;

Just return readl_poll_timeout() please.

> +}
> +
> +static long clk_wzrd_round_rate_f(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> +                                 unsigned long *prate)
> +{
> +       return rate;

Can every rate be supported? This function is supposed to tell the clk
framework what rate will be achieved if we call clk_set_rate() with
'rate' passed to this function. Almost always returning 'rate' is not
the case.

> 
> +
> +static const struct clk_ops clk_wzrd_clk_divider_ops_f = {
> +       .round_rate = clk_wzrd_round_rate_f,
> +       .set_rate = clk_wzrd_dynamic_reconfig_f,
> +       .recalc_rate = clk_wzrd_recalc_ratef,
> +};
> +
> +static struct clk *clk_wzrd_register_divf(struct device *dev,
> +                                         const char *name,
> +                                         const char *parent_name,
> +                                         unsigned long flags,
> +                                         void __iomem *base, u16 offset,
> +                                         u8 shift, u8 width,
> +                                         u8 clk_divider_flags,
> +                                         const struct clk_div_table *table,
> +                                         spinlock_t *lock)
> +{
> +       struct clk_wzrd_divider *div;
> +       struct clk_hw *hw;
> +       struct clk_init_data init;
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       if (clk_divider_flags & CLK_DIVIDER_HIWORD_MASK) {

Is this used? It's a rockchip specific flag mostly so probably not?

> +               if (width + shift > 16) {
> +                       pr_warn("divider value exceeds LOWORD field\n");
> +                       return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       /* allocate the divider */

Please remove useless comments like this.

> +       div = kzalloc(sizeof(*div), GFP_KERNEL);
> +       if (!div)
> +               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> +       init.name = name;
> +
> +       if (clk_divider_flags & CLK_DIVIDER_READ_ONLY)

Is this flag used?

> +               init.ops = &clk_divider_ro_ops;
> +       else
> +               init.ops = &clk_wzrd_clk_divider_ops_f;
> +
> +       init.flags = flags;
> +       init.parent_names = (parent_name ? &parent_name : NULL);
> +       init.num_parents = (parent_name ? 1 : 0);

Do you have cases where there isn't a parent? Hopefully not, so this
can be simplified.

>
> +       /* struct clk_divider assignments */

Drop this comment?

> +       div->base = base;
> +       div->offset = offset;
> +       div->shift = shift;
> +       div->width = width;
> +       div->flags = clk_divider_flags;
> +       div->lock = lock;
> +       div->hw.init = &init;
> +       div->table = table;
> +
> +       /* register the clock */

Drop this comment?

> +       hw = &div->hw;
> +       ret = clk_hw_register(dev, hw);

Any reason we can't use devm_clk_hw_register() here?

> +       if (ret) {
> +               kfree(div);
> +               return ERR_PTR(ret);
> +       }
> +
> +       return hw->clk;
> +}
> +
>  static struct clk *clk_wzrd_register_divider(struct device *dev,
>                                              const char *name,
>                                              const char *parent_name,
> @@ -355,17 +489,13 @@ static int clk_wzrd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>                 goto err_disable_clk;
>         }
>  
> -       /* we don't support fractional div/mul yet */
> -       reg = readl(clk_wzrd->base + WZRD_CLK_CFG_REG(0)) &
> -                   WZRD_CLKFBOUT_FRAC_EN;
> -       reg |= readl(clk_wzrd->base + WZRD_CLK_CFG_REG(2)) &
> -                    WZRD_CLKOUT0_FRAC_EN;
> -       if (reg)
> -               dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "fractional div/mul not supported\n");
> -
>         /* register multiplier */
>         reg = (readl(clk_wzrd->base + WZRD_CLK_CFG_REG(0)) &
>                      WZRD_CLKFBOUT_MULT_MASK) >> WZRD_CLKFBOUT_MULT_SHIFT;
> +       reg_f = (readl(clk_wzrd->base + WZRD_CLK_CFG_REG(0)) &
> +                    WZRD_CLKFBOUT_FRAC_MASK) >> WZRD_CLKFBOUT_FRAC_SHIFT;

Use two lines please. Read into variable on one line, shift on another.

> +
> +       mult = ((reg * 1000) + reg_f);

Please remove extra parenthesis.

>         clk_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s_mul", dev_name(&pdev->dev));
>         if (!clk_name) {
>                 ret = -ENOMEM;
> @@ -413,8 +543,18 @@ static int clk_wzrd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>                         ret = -EINVAL;
>                         goto err_rm_int_clks;
>                 }
> -               clk_wzrd->clkout[i] = clk_wzrd_register_divider(&pdev->dev,
> -                                                               clkout_name,
> +               if (!i)
> +                       clk_wzrd->clkout[i] = clk_wzrd_register_divf
> +                               (&pdev->dev, clkout_name,
> +                               clk_name, 0,
> +                               clk_wzrd->base, (WZRD_CLK_CFG_REG(2) + i * 12),
> +                               WZRD_CLKOUT_DIVIDE_SHIFT,
> +                               WZRD_CLKOUT_DIVIDE_WIDTH,
> +                               CLK_DIVIDER_ONE_BASED | CLK_DIVIDER_ALLOW_ZERO,
> +                               NULL, &clkwzrd_lock);
> +               else
> +                       clk_wzrd->clkout[i] = clk_wzrd_register_divider
> +                               (&pdev->dev, clkout_name,
>                                 clk_name, 0,
>                                 clk_wzrd->base, (WZRD_CLK_CFG_REG(2) + i * 12),
>                                 WZRD_CLKOUT_DIVIDE_SHIFT,
> 

I wonder if a do-while loop with flags set to ONE_BASED and ALLOW_ZERO
could work and then flags gets overwritten to be just DIVIDE_SHIFT? Then
we don't have to duplicate the registration line.


More information about the devel mailing list