Re: [PATCH RE-SEND] clk: tegra: Don't enable already enabled PLLs

2019-04-14 Thread Dmitry Osipenko
04.03.2019 16:42, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> 04.03.2019 11:18, Peter De Schrijver пишет:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 06:15:04PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> 24.02.2019 18:32, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
 Initially Common Clock Framework isn't aware of the clock-enable status,
 this results in enabling of clocks that were enabled by bootloader. This
 is not a big deal for a regular clock-gates, but for PLL's it may have
 some unpleasant consequences. Thus re-enabling PLLX (the main CPU parent
 clock) may result in extra long period of PLL re-locking.

 Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko 
 ---
>>>
>>> Peter (and everyone else), yours r-b and ACK will be appreciated since you 
>>> kinda already took a look at this patch in the past and were okay with it 
>>> (IIRC, we had some brief discussion on the #tegra IRC a few months ago), 
>>> thanks. 
>>>
>>
>> Acked-By: Peter De Schrijver 
>>
> 
> Awesome, thanks again!
> 

Hello Stephen and Michael,

Could you please pick up this patch to get it into linux-next to get some more 
testing exposure before it will hit upstream? Thanks in advance.


Re: [PATCH RE-SEND] clk: tegra: Don't enable already enabled PLLs

2019-03-04 Thread Dmitry Osipenko
04.03.2019 11:18, Peter De Schrijver пишет:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 06:15:04PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 24.02.2019 18:32, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>>> Initially Common Clock Framework isn't aware of the clock-enable status,
>>> this results in enabling of clocks that were enabled by bootloader. This
>>> is not a big deal for a regular clock-gates, but for PLL's it may have
>>> some unpleasant consequences. Thus re-enabling PLLX (the main CPU parent
>>> clock) may result in extra long period of PLL re-locking.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko 
>>> ---
>>
>> Peter (and everyone else), yours r-b and ACK will be appreciated since you 
>> kinda already took a look at this patch in the past and were okay with it 
>> (IIRC, we had some brief discussion on the #tegra IRC a few months ago), 
>> thanks. 
>>
> 
> Acked-By: Peter De Schrijver 
> 

Awesome, thanks again!


Re: [PATCH RE-SEND] clk: tegra: Don't enable already enabled PLLs

2019-03-04 Thread Peter De Schrijver
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 06:15:04PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 24.02.2019 18:32, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> > Initially Common Clock Framework isn't aware of the clock-enable status,
> > this results in enabling of clocks that were enabled by bootloader. This
> > is not a big deal for a regular clock-gates, but for PLL's it may have
> > some unpleasant consequences. Thus re-enabling PLLX (the main CPU parent
> > clock) may result in extra long period of PLL re-locking.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko 
> > ---
> 
> Peter (and everyone else), yours r-b and ACK will be appreciated since you 
> kinda already took a look at this patch in the past and were okay with it 
> (IIRC, we had some brief discussion on the #tegra IRC a few months ago), 
> thanks. 
> 

Acked-By: Peter De Schrijver 



Re: [PATCH RE-SEND] clk: tegra: Don't enable already enabled PLLs

2019-02-27 Thread Dmitry Osipenko
24.02.2019 18:32, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> Initially Common Clock Framework isn't aware of the clock-enable status,
> this results in enabling of clocks that were enabled by bootloader. This
> is not a big deal for a regular clock-gates, but for PLL's it may have
> some unpleasant consequences. Thus re-enabling PLLX (the main CPU parent
> clock) may result in extra long period of PLL re-locking.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko 
> ---

Peter (and everyone else), yours r-b and ACK will be appreciated since you 
kinda already took a look at this patch in the past and were okay with it 
(IIRC, we had some brief discussion on the #tegra IRC a few months ago), 
thanks. 



[PATCH RE-SEND] clk: tegra: Don't enable already enabled PLLs

2019-02-24 Thread Dmitry Osipenko
Initially Common Clock Framework isn't aware of the clock-enable status,
this results in enabling of clocks that were enabled by bootloader. This
is not a big deal for a regular clock-gates, but for PLL's it may have
some unpleasant consequences. Thus re-enabling PLLX (the main CPU parent
clock) may result in extra long period of PLL re-locking.

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko 
---
 drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c | 50 +++--
 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
index b50b7460014b..ebc8481a2122 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
@@ -444,6 +444,9 @@ static int clk_pll_enable(struct clk_hw *hw)
unsigned long flags = 0;
int ret;
 
+   if (clk_pll_is_enabled(hw))
+   return 0;
+
if (pll->lock)
spin_lock_irqsave(pll->lock, flags);
 
@@ -940,11 +943,16 @@ static int clk_plle_training(struct tegra_clk_pll *pll)
 static int clk_plle_enable(struct clk_hw *hw)
 {
struct tegra_clk_pll *pll = to_clk_pll(hw);
-   unsigned long input_rate = clk_hw_get_rate(clk_hw_get_parent(hw));
struct tegra_clk_pll_freq_table sel;
+   unsigned long input_rate;
u32 val;
int err;
 
+   if (clk_pll_is_enabled(hw))
+   return 0;
+
+   input_rate = clk_hw_get_rate(clk_hw_get_parent(hw));
+
if (_get_table_rate(hw, , pll->params->fixed_rate, input_rate))
return -EINVAL;
 
@@ -1355,6 +1363,9 @@ static int clk_pllc_enable(struct clk_hw *hw)
int ret;
unsigned long flags = 0;
 
+   if (clk_pll_is_enabled(hw))
+   return 0;
+
if (pll->lock)
spin_lock_irqsave(pll->lock, flags);
 
@@ -1567,7 +1578,12 @@ static int clk_plle_tegra114_enable(struct clk_hw *hw)
u32 val;
int ret;
unsigned long flags = 0;
-   unsigned long input_rate = clk_hw_get_rate(clk_hw_get_parent(hw));
+   unsigned long input_rate;
+
+   if (clk_pll_is_enabled(hw))
+   return 0;
+
+   input_rate = clk_hw_get_rate(clk_hw_get_parent(hw));
 
if (_get_table_rate(hw, , pll->params->fixed_rate, input_rate))
return -EINVAL;
@@ -1704,6 +1720,9 @@ static int clk_pllu_tegra114_enable(struct clk_hw *hw)
return -EINVAL;
}
 
+   if (clk_pll_is_enabled(hw))
+   return 0;
+
input_rate = clk_hw_get_rate(__clk_get_hw(osc));
 
if (pll->lock)
@@ -2379,6 +2398,16 @@ struct clk *tegra_clk_register_pllre_tegra210(const char 
*name,
return clk;
 }
 
+static int clk_plle_tegra210_is_enabled(struct clk_hw *hw)
+{
+   struct tegra_clk_pll *pll = to_clk_pll(hw);
+   u32 val;
+
+   val = pll_readl_base(pll);
+
+   return val & PLLE_BASE_ENABLE ? 1 : 0;
+}
+
 static int clk_plle_tegra210_enable(struct clk_hw *hw)
 {
struct tegra_clk_pll *pll = to_clk_pll(hw);
@@ -2386,7 +2415,12 @@ static int clk_plle_tegra210_enable(struct clk_hw *hw)
u32 val;
int ret = 0;
unsigned long flags = 0;
-   unsigned long input_rate = clk_hw_get_rate(clk_hw_get_parent(hw));
+   unsigned long input_rate;
+
+   if (clk_plle_tegra210_is_enabled(hw))
+   return 0;
+
+   input_rate = clk_hw_get_rate(clk_hw_get_parent(hw));
 
if (_get_table_rate(hw, , pll->params->fixed_rate, input_rate))
return -EINVAL;
@@ -2497,16 +2531,6 @@ static void clk_plle_tegra210_disable(struct clk_hw *hw)
spin_unlock_irqrestore(pll->lock, flags);
 }
 
-static int clk_plle_tegra210_is_enabled(struct clk_hw *hw)
-{
-   struct tegra_clk_pll *pll = to_clk_pll(hw);
-   u32 val;
-
-   val = pll_readl_base(pll);
-
-   return val & PLLE_BASE_ENABLE ? 1 : 0;
-}
-
 static const struct clk_ops tegra_clk_plle_tegra210_ops = {
.is_enabled =  clk_plle_tegra210_is_enabled,
.enable = clk_plle_tegra210_enable,
-- 
2.20.1