| Message ID | 20190201083016.25856-1-weiyi.lu@mediatek.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Mediatek MT8183 clock and scpsys support | expand |
This series is based on v5.0-rc1 and most of changes are extracted from series below (clock/scpsys common changes for both MT8183 & MT6765) https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10528495/ (clock support of MT8183) https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10549891/ The whole series is composed of clock common changes for both MT8183 & MT6765 (PATCH 1-3), scpsys common changes for both MT8183 & MT6765 (PATCH 4), clock support of MT8183 (PATCH 5-8), scpsys support of MT8183 (PATCH 9-11) and resend a clock patch long time ago(PTACH 12). change sinve v3: - add fix tag. - small change of mtk_clk_mux data structure. - use of_property_for_each_string to iterate dependent subsys clock of power domain. - document critical clocks. - reduce some clock register error log. - few coding style fix. change sinve v2: - refine for implementation consistency of mtk clk mux. - separate the onoff API into enable/disable API for mtk scpsys. - resend a patch about PLL rate changing. changes since v1: - refine for better code quality. - some minor bug fix of clock part, like incorrect control address and missing clocks. James Liao (1): clk: mediatek: Allow changing PLL rate when it is off Owen Chen (4): clk: mediatek: Disable tuner_en before change PLL rate clk: mediatek: add new clkmux register API clk: mediatek: add configurable pcwibits and fmin to mtk_pll_data soc: mediatek: add new flow for mtcmos power. Weiyi Lu (7): dt-bindings: ARM: Mediatek: Document bindings for MT8183 clk: mediatek: Add dt-bindings for MT8183 clocks clk: mediatek: Add flags support for mtk_gate data clk: mediatek: Add MT8183 clock support dt-bindings: soc: fix typo of MT8173 power dt-bindings dt-bindings: soc: Add MT8183 power dt-bindings soc: mediatek: Add MT8183 scpsys support .../arm/mediatek/mediatek,apmixedsys.txt | 1 + .../bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,audsys.txt | 1 + .../bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,camsys.txt | 22 + .../bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,imgsys.txt | 1 + .../arm/mediatek/mediatek,infracfg.txt | 1 + .../bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,ipu.txt | 43 + .../bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mcucfg.txt | 1 + .../bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mfgcfg.txt | 1 + .../bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.txt | 1 + .../arm/mediatek/mediatek,topckgen.txt | 1 + .../arm/mediatek/mediatek,vdecsys.txt | 1 + .../arm/mediatek/mediatek,vencsys.txt | 1 + .../bindings/soc/mediatek/scpsys.txt | 14 + drivers/clk/mediatek/Kconfig | 75 + drivers/clk/mediatek/Makefile | 15 +- drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-gate.c | 5 +- drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-gate.h | 17 +- drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-audio.c | 105 ++ drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-cam.c | 63 + drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-img.c | 63 + drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-ipu0.c | 56 + drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-ipu1.c | 56 + drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-ipu_adl.c | 54 + drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-ipu_conn.c | 123 ++ drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-mfgcfg.c | 54 + drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-mm.c | 111 ++ drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-vdec.c | 67 + drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-venc.c | 59 + drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183.c | 1285 +++++++++++++++++ drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mtk.c | 3 +- drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mtk.h | 3 + drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mux.c | 223 +++ drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mux.h | 89 ++ drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-pll.c | 53 +- drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile | 2 +- drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys-ext.c | 99 ++ drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c | 602 ++++++-- include/dt-bindings/clock/mt8183-clk.h | 422 ++++++ include/dt-bindings/power/mt8173-power.h | 6 +- include/dt-bindings/power/mt8183-power.h | 26 + include/linux/soc/mediatek/scpsys-ext.h | 39 + 41 files changed, 3757 insertions(+), 107 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,camsys.txt create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,ipu.txt create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-audio.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-cam.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-img.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-ipu0.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-ipu1.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-ipu_adl.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-ipu_conn.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-mfgcfg.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-mm.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-vdec.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183-venc.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt8183.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mux.c create mode 100644 drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mux.h create mode 100644 drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys-ext.c create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/clock/mt8183-clk.h create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/power/mt8183-power.h create mode 100644 include/linux/soc/mediatek/scpsys-ext.h
Quoting Weiyi Lu (2019-02-01 00:30:04) > This series is based on v5.0-rc1 and most of changes are extracted from series below > (clock/scpsys common changes for both MT8183 & MT6765) > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10528495/ > (clock support of MT8183) > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10549891/ > > The whole series is composed of > clock common changes for both MT8183 & MT6765 (PATCH 1-3), > scpsys common changes for both MT8183 & MT6765 (PATCH 4), > clock support of MT8183 (PATCH 5-8), > scpsys support of MT8183 (PATCH 9-11) and > resend a clock patch long time ago(PTACH 12). What's the merge plan here? Do you want me to apply these patches to clk tree? Will someone be sending me a pull request for mediatek clk changes this cycle? It's getting pretty late for much of anything making this upcoming merge window.
On 20/02/2019 20:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Weiyi Lu (2019-02-01 00:30:04) >> This series is based on v5.0-rc1 and most of changes are extracted from series below >> (clock/scpsys common changes for both MT8183 & MT6765) >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10528495/ >> (clock support of MT8183) >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10549891/ >> >> The whole series is composed of >> clock common changes for both MT8183 & MT6765 (PATCH 1-3), >> scpsys common changes for both MT8183 & MT6765 (PATCH 4), >> clock support of MT8183 (PATCH 5-8), >> scpsys support of MT8183 (PATCH 9-11) and >> resend a clock patch long time ago(PTACH 12). > > What's the merge plan here? Do you want me to apply these patches to clk > tree? Will someone be sending me a pull request for mediatek clk changes > this cycle? It's getting pretty late for much of anything making this > upcoming merge window. > As far as I can see, the clock patches are independent, so I think it is OK to take them. SCPSYS patches will go through my tree once they are in shape. Do you prefer to get pull requests for clock patches? I wasn't aware of that. But if you prefer that, we can find someone who prepares every merge window a pull request. Regards, Matthias
Quoting Matthias Brugger (2019-02-21 00:36:24) > > > On 20/02/2019 20:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > What's the merge plan here? Do you want me to apply these patches to clk > > tree? Will someone be sending me a pull request for mediatek clk changes > > this cycle? It's getting pretty late for much of anything making this > > upcoming merge window. > > > > As far as I can see, the clock patches are independent, so I think it is OK to > take them. SCPSYS patches will go through my tree once they are in shape. Ok great. When patches for clks are interspersed throughout the patch series it makes me think that something later in the series depends on something that isn't a clk patch so then I can't apply it. > > Do you prefer to get pull requests for clock patches? I wasn't aware of that. > But if you prefer that, we can find someone who prepares every merge window a > pull request. > I don't really care one way or the other about pull requests vs. manually applying patches. It helps if someone wants to pick the patches up and send them along when there are complex dependencies between the clk patches and dts bits or something like that. It also helps if there's someone else with knowledge of the particular SoC saying "these are good, please pull these patches". Subsystem maintainers obviously aren't experts in all SoCs and their various quirks, plus datasheets aren't always so widely available, so sharing the load with SoC maintainers who are familiar with the hardware usually makes a lot of sense. Otherwise, if you just want to put your "Reviewed-by" tag on any patches that look good and are sane then I'll quickly understand that these patches are good and that I should pick them up into the clk tree from the list. Just please communicate one way or the other about patches that you care about because it helps to know if they've gotten attention or not.
On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 23:48 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Matthias Brugger (2019-02-21 00:36:24) > > > > > > On 20/02/2019 20:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > What's the merge plan here? Do you want me to apply these patches to clk > > > tree? Will someone be sending me a pull request for mediatek clk changes > > > this cycle? It's getting pretty late for much of anything making this > > > upcoming merge window. > > > > > > > As far as I can see, the clock patches are independent, so I think it is OK to > > take them. SCPSYS patches will go through my tree once they are in shape. > > Ok great. When patches for clks are interspersed throughout the patch > series it makes me think that something later in the series depends on > something that isn't a clk patch so then I can't apply it. > Hi Stephen, Sorry for making such complex dependencies between the clk patches and others in this series. And just like Matthias mentioned, the clock patches are independent from others. I could resend a clock-only series right away if each clock patch in v4 is qualified to merge into clk-next. If there still some provide need to be fixed, please let me know. I'll fix them and send v5 only for clock. > > > > Do you prefer to get pull requests for clock patches? I wasn't aware of that. > > But if you prefer that, we can find someone who prepares every merge window a > > pull request. > > > > I don't really care one way or the other about pull requests vs. > manually applying patches. It helps if someone wants to pick the patches > up and send them along when there are complex dependencies between the > clk patches and dts bits or something like that. It also helps if > there's someone else with knowledge of the particular SoC saying "these > are good, please pull these patches". Subsystem maintainers obviously > aren't experts in all SoCs and their various quirks, plus datasheets > aren't always so widely available, so sharing the load with SoC > maintainers who are familiar with the hardware usually makes a lot of > sense. > > Otherwise, if you just want to put your "Reviewed-by" tag on any patches > that look good and are sane then I'll quickly understand that these > patches are good and that I should pick them up into the clk tree from > the list. Just please communicate one way or the other about patches > that you care about because it helps to know if they've gotten attention > or not. >
Quoting Weiyi Lu (2019-02-25 20:00:50) > On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 23:48 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Matthias Brugger (2019-02-21 00:36:24) > > > > > > > > > On 20/02/2019 20:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > > > What's the merge plan here? Do you want me to apply these patches to clk > > > > tree? Will someone be sending me a pull request for mediatek clk changes > > > > this cycle? It's getting pretty late for much of anything making this > > > > upcoming merge window. > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can see, the clock patches are independent, so I think it is OK to > > > take them. SCPSYS patches will go through my tree once they are in shape. > > > > Ok great. When patches for clks are interspersed throughout the patch > > series it makes me think that something later in the series depends on > > something that isn't a clk patch so then I can't apply it. > > > > Hi Stephen, > > Sorry for making such complex dependencies between the clk patches and > others in this series. And just like Matthias mentioned, the clock > patches are independent from others. I could resend a clock-only series > right away if each clock patch in v4 is qualified to merge into > clk-next. > If there still some provide need to be fixed, please let me know. I'll > fix them and send v5 only for clock. It looks like Matthias has some comments on the first patch that need to be addressed. I looked over the rest of the clk patches and they look ok at a quick glance. If you resend just the clk patches without the rest then I can probably apply them for the upcoming merge window.