Antwort: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: i.MX6ul: Add Clock support for i.MX6ull

["Stefan Riedmüller" <S.Riedmueller@phytec.de>]

Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote on 16/05/2017 07:47:39:

> Von: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
> An: Stefan Riedmueller <s.riedmueller@phytec.de>
> Kopie: barebox@lists.infradead.org
> Datum: 16/05/2017 07:47
> Betreff: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: i.MX6ul: Add Clock support for i.MX6ull
> 
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:09:27AM +0200, Stefan Riedmueller wrote:
> > From linux-4.10 clock support, only skipped some unnecessary clocks
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Riedmueller <s.riedmueller@phytec.de>
> > ---
> >  drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx6ul.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx6ul.c 
b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx6ul.c
> > index f28660d..b0a6bb0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx6ul.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx6ul.c
> > @@ -66,10 +66,24 @@ static const char *perclk_sels[] = { "ipg", "osc", 
};
> >  static const char *lcdif_sels[] = { "lcdif_podf", "ipp_di0", 
> "ipp_di1", "ldb_di0", "ldb_di1", };
> >  static const char *csi_sels[] = { "osc", "pll2_pfd2_396m", 
> "pll3_120m", "pll3_pfd1_540m", };
> >  static const char *sim_sels[] = { "sim_podf", "ipp_di0", 
> "ipp_di1", "ldb_di0", "ldb_di1", };
> > +/* epdc_pre_sels, epdc_sels, esai_sels only exists on i.MX6ULL */
> > +static const char *epdc_pre_sels[] = { "pll2_bus", 
> "pll3_usb_otg", "pll5_video_div", "pll2_pfd0_352m", 
> "pll2_pfd2_396m", "pll3_pfd2_508m", };
> > +static const char *esai_sels[] = { "pll4_audio_div", 
> "pll3_pfd2_508m", "pll5_video_div", "pll3_usb_otg", };
> > +static const char *epdc_sels[] = { "epdc_podf", "ipp_di0", 
> "ipp_di1", "ldb_di0", "ldb_di1", };
> > 
> >  static struct clk *clks[IMX6UL_CLK_END];
> >  static struct clk_onecell_data clk_data;
> > 
> > +static inline int clk_on_imx6ul(void)
> > +{
> > +   return of_machine_is_compatible("fsl,imx6ul");
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline int clk_on_imx6ull(void)
> > +{
> > +   return of_machine_is_compatible("fsl,imx6ull");
> > +}
> 
> Can we use cpu_is_imx6ul(l) instead here? This would allow
> us to compile away the code if we one of the two SoCs is
> disabled in the config.
> 
> Sascha
> 

Hi Sascha, 

I tried to use cpu_is_mx6ul, but it seems it is not valid yet in the clk 
initcall. I found that __imx_cpu_type is set in a postcore initcall but 
would be already evaluated in cpu_is_mx6ul in the clk initcall which is a 
core initcall. So cpu_is_mx6ul would not evaluate correctly at this point. 


I also checked this with an i.MX6 DualLight where the cpu_is_mx6dl is 
implemented in the ccm init and there it evaluates wrong. In the ccm 
initcall it evaluates to 0 but later after the postcore initcalls it 
evaluates correctly to 1. So it seems the cpu_is_mx6ul/dl is not working 
correctly in the clk initcall. Did I get this correct or did I miss 
anything? 

Thanks for your help.
Stefan 

> -- 
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ 
|
> Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 
|


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox