Re: Minimal support for dm814x

On 18 November 2015 at 09:26, Delio Brignoli wrote: >> This works in principle, but both minimizing the DCO and (often >> needlessly) using the fractional multiplier seem like recipes to >> maximize the clock jitter. Mind you, I don't know how much jitter >> we’re

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

On 18 Nov 2015, at 11:01, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > On 18 November 2015 at 09:26, Delio Brignoli > wrote: >>> This works in principle, but both minimizing the DCO and (often >>> needlessly) using the fractional multiplier seem like recipes

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

On 18 Nov 2015, at 06:22, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > The PLL code looks pretty mediocre to me. In particular, they make no > effort whatsoever to configure an exact ratio. It seems their > algorithm uses whatever pre divider was already programmed, I believe the

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

On 13 November 2015 at 15:52, Tony Lindgren wrote: > I think this is the most recent TI git repo for dm81xx changes: > > http://arago-project.org/git/projects/?p=linux-omap3.git;a=summary Yeah, although I usually prefer to look at the linux-ipnc-rdk-dm81xx.git and

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

* Tony Lindgren [151113 06:53]: > * Matthijs van Duin [151113 03:00]: > > On 13 November 2015 at 08:14, Matthijs van Duin > > wrote: > > > It seems this is how the old TI kernel handles them: http://goo.gl/3I3OEL > > > >

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

On 13 November 2015 at 08:14, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > It seems this is how the old TI kernel handles them: http://goo.gl/3I3OEL Never mind, wasn't paying attention and managed to overlook that google had found me the u-boot tree instead of the kernel tree I intended

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

* Matthijs van Duin [151113 03:00]: > On 13 November 2015 at 08:14, Matthijs van Duin > wrote: > > It seems this is how the old TI kernel handles them: http://goo.gl/3I3OEL > > Never mind, wasn't paying attention and managed to overlook that

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

On 11 November 2015 at 18:40, Tony Lindgren wrote: > Well we do first try to set the rate using the divider only at least for > drivers/clk/ti/fapll.c used on dm816x. I'm thinking about doing a similar > driver for the dm814x adpll where we have a PLL and separate output clocks

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

On 12 November 2015 at 18:41, Tony Lindgren wrote: > Does the old TI kernel tree driver correctly handle that? It seems this is how the old TI kernel handles them: http://goo.gl/3I3OEL -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

* Matthijs van Duin [151112 01:21]: > On 11 November 2015 at 18:40, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > Well we do first try to set the rate using the divider only at least for > > drivers/clk/ti/fapll.c used on dm816x. I'm thinking about doing a similar > >

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

* Delio Brignoli [151110 02:24]: > On 10 Nov 2015, at 09:50, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > > On 9 November 2015 at 16:06, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> The PLL support is still missing, so it relies on the bootloader > >>

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

On 9 November 2015 at 16:06, Tony Lindgren wrote: > The PLL support is still missing, so it relies on the bootloader > configured PLL values for now. I'm hoping to post PLL support patches over > next few weeks and then we can have that and more devices working for v4.5. Ah,

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

On 10 Nov 2015, at 09:50, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > On 9 November 2015 at 16:06, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> The PLL support is still missing, so it relies on the bootloader >> configured PLL values for now. I'm hoping to post PLL support patches over >>

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

Hi, On 09 Nov 2015, at 16:06, Tony Lindgren wrote: > It's now merged to mainline v4.3, so whatever is the current latest tagged > mainline kernel release (v4.3 currently) is the one to use from now on > natually :) The PLL support is still missing, so it relies on the

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

On 10 November 2015 at 11:23, Delio Brignoli wrote: > are you aware of section 2.1.2 of ... I am. It seems that the digital PLLs tend to produce an asymmetrical clock in general hence you need an even postdivider to get a 50% duty cycle. DPLL-S however already has an

Re: Minimal support for dm814x

Hi, * Delio Brignoli [151105 05:10]: > Hello Tony, > > We use dm814x in some of our products with a kernel based on version 2.6.37 > modified by TI and are considering moving to a current kernel version. I > recently saw this >