| Message ID | 1372149330-24335-1-git-send-email-coelho@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi, On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:35:30AM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > Add device tree bindings documentation for the TI WiLink modules. > Currently only the WLAN part of the WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8 > modules is supported. > > Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> > --- > > I created a new directory under net to contain wireless bindings documentation. > > The actual implementation in the driver will follow separately. > > .../devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..d8e8bfbb > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ > +TI WiLink Wireless Modules Device Tree Bindings > +=============================================== > + > +The WiLink modules provide wireless connectivity, such as WLAN, > +Bluetooth, FM and NFC. > + > +There are several different modules available, which can be grouped by > +their generation: WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8. WiLink4 is not > +currently supported with device tree. > + > +Currently, only the WLAN portion of the modules is supported with > +device tree. > + > +Required properties: > +-------------------- > + > +- compatible: should be "ti,wilink6", "ti,wilink7" or "ti,wilink8" > +- interrupt-parent: the interrupt controller > +- interrupts: out-of-band WLAN interrupt > + See the interrupt controller's bindings documentation for > + detailed definition. > + > +Optional properties: > +-------------------- > + > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > + following: > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > + > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > + following: > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > + 7 = 33.600 MHz DTS files are pre-processed, so you could add defines in a header and share the header between DTS and driver. Could help you having: tcxoclock = WILINK_19_200MHz; instead of tcxoclock = 0;
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 14:12 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:35:30AM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > + following: > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > DTS files are pre-processed, so you could add defines in a header and > share the header between DTS and driver. Could help you having: > > tcxoclock = WILINK_19_200MHz; > > instead of > > tcxoclock = 0; I don't see any .dts file really doing this. There are some imx*.dtsi files that include imx*.h files, but I don't see these headers being included in any source code file. In fact, we already have all these values defined in include/linux/wl12xx.h, so it could be nice to reuse. But the cross-directory includes would look "funny". And I think it's a bit overkill. These values are actually used by the firmware itself, not only the driver, so they are also platform independent and not related to the OS. -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 02:56:10PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 14:12 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:35:30AM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > + following: > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > DTS files are pre-processed, so you could add defines in a header and > > share the header between DTS and driver. Could help you having: > > > > tcxoclock = WILINK_19_200MHz; > > > > instead of > > > > tcxoclock = 0; > > I don't see any .dts file really doing this. There are some imx*.dtsi > files that include imx*.h files, but I don't see these headers being > included in any source code file. > > In fact, we already have all these values defined in > include/linux/wl12xx.h, so it could be nice to reuse. But the > cross-directory includes would look "funny". And I think it's a bit > overkill. > > These values are actually used by the firmware itself, not only the > driver, so they are also platform independent and not related to the OS. fair enough, then there's no chance they'll change all of a sudden.
(fixed the ARM mailing list address) On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:35 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > Add device tree bindings documentation for the TI WiLink modules. > Currently only the WLAN part of the WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8 > modules is supported. > > Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> > --- > > I created a new directory under net to contain wireless bindings documentation. > > The actual implementation in the driver will follow separately. > > .../devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..d8e8bfbb > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ > +TI WiLink Wireless Modules Device Tree Bindings > +=============================================== > + > +The WiLink modules provide wireless connectivity, such as WLAN, > +Bluetooth, FM and NFC. > + > +There are several different modules available, which can be grouped by > +their generation: WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8. WiLink4 is not > +currently supported with device tree. > + > +Currently, only the WLAN portion of the modules is supported with > +device tree. > + > +Required properties: > +-------------------- > + > +- compatible: should be "ti,wilink6", "ti,wilink7" or "ti,wilink8" > +- interrupt-parent: the interrupt controller > +- interrupts: out-of-band WLAN interrupt > + See the interrupt controller's bindings documentation for > + detailed definition. > + > +Optional properties: > +-------------------- > + > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > + following: > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > + > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > + following: > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > + 7 = 33.600 MHz If this is okay for everyone, can I push this via my tree (which goes to linux-wireless->net->linus)? I think it makes more sense to send the documentation together with the patch that actually implements the DT node parsing in the driver. -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
(oh crap, now *really* fixed the ARM mailing list address) On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:35 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > Add device tree bindings documentation for the TI WiLink modules. > Currently only the WLAN part of the WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8 > modules is supported. > > Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> > --- > > I created a new directory under net to contain wireless bindings documentation. > > The actual implementation in the driver will follow separately. > > .../devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..d8e8bfbb > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ > +TI WiLink Wireless Modules Device Tree Bindings > +=============================================== > + > +The WiLink modules provide wireless connectivity, such as WLAN, > +Bluetooth, FM and NFC. > + > +There are several different modules available, which can be grouped by > +their generation: WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8. WiLink4 is not > +currently supported with device tree. > + > +Currently, only the WLAN portion of the modules is supported with > +device tree. > + > +Required properties: > +-------------------- > + > +- compatible: should be "ti,wilink6", "ti,wilink7" or "ti,wilink8" > +- interrupt-parent: the interrupt controller > +- interrupts: out-of-band WLAN interrupt > + See the interrupt controller's bindings documentation for > + detailed definition. > + > +Optional properties: > +-------------------- > + > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > + following: > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > + > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > + following: > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > + 7 = 33.600 MHz If this is okay for everyone, can I push this via my tree (which goes to linux-wireless->net->linus)? I think it makes more sense to send the documentation together with the patch that actually implements the DT node parsing in the driver. -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> [130625 12:43]: > (oh crap, now *really* fixed the ARM mailing list address) > > On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:35 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > Add device tree bindings documentation for the TI WiLink modules. > > Currently only the WLAN part of the WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8 > > modules is supported. > > > > Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> > > --- > > > > I created a new directory under net to contain wireless bindings documentation. > > > > The actual implementation in the driver will follow separately. > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..d8e8bfbb > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > > @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ > > +TI WiLink Wireless Modules Device Tree Bindings > > +=============================================== > > + > > +The WiLink modules provide wireless connectivity, such as WLAN, > > +Bluetooth, FM and NFC. > > + > > +There are several different modules available, which can be grouped by > > +their generation: WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8. WiLink4 is not > > +currently supported with device tree. > > + > > +Currently, only the WLAN portion of the modules is supported with > > +device tree. > > + > > +Required properties: > > +-------------------- > > + > > +- compatible: should be "ti,wilink6", "ti,wilink7" or "ti,wilink8" > > +- interrupt-parent: the interrupt controller > > +- interrupts: out-of-band WLAN interrupt > > + See the interrupt controller's bindings documentation for > > + detailed definition. > > + > > +Optional properties: > > +-------------------- > > + > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > + following: > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL This is just the omap refclock, right? If so, you can just pass the standard clock phandle. I know we don't yet have the DT clocks merged, but Tero just posted another revision of those. > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > + following: > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz Where does this clock come from? Maybe this can be set based on the compatible value if it's completely internal? > If this is okay for everyone, can I push this via my tree (which goes to > linux-wireless->net->linus)? I think it makes more sense to send the > documentation together with the patch that actually implements the DT > node parsing in the driver. If we can use the standard bindings, it might be worth waiting until we have the DT clocks available as we have the pdata workaround merged anyways. That's because then we don't need to support the custom binding later on ;) Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Tony, On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 23:24 -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> [130625 12:43]: > > On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:35 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > Add device tree bindings documentation for the TI WiLink modules. > > > Currently only the WLAN part of the WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8 > > > modules is supported. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> > > > --- [...] > > > +Optional properties: > > > +-------------------- > > > + > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > + following: > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > This is just the omap refclock, right? If so, you can just pass the > standard clock phandle. I know we don't yet have the DT clocks merged, > but Tero just posted another revision of those. This is an internal clock. This clock is part of the module that contains the WiLink chip. It is not associated with the clocks in the main board (OMAP). > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > + following: > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > Where does this clock come from? Maybe this can be set based on the > compatible value if it's completely internal? This is also a completely internal clock. My "compatible" values are based on the WiLink chip itself, not in the module that contains the chip. There are several modules and they are the ones that specify the clock frequencies. This data I'm passing here is just to tell the WiLink chip which frequencies the module uses. My driver is for the WiLink chip itself, not to the module (in theory). So I think having the WiLink values as bindings would be more generic than having to specify values for each available module (eg. "lsr-research,tiwi-ble") and mapping those values to specific frequencies in the driver. > > If this is okay for everyone, can I push this via my tree (which goes to > > linux-wireless->net->linus)? I think it makes more sense to send the > > documentation together with the patch that actually implements the DT > > node parsing in the driver. > > If we can use the standard bindings, it might be worth waiting until > we have the DT clocks available as we have the pdata workaround merged > anyways. That's because then we don't need to support the custom > binding later on ;) I looked into Tero's patches and I considered using the generic clock bindings, but I think it doesn't make sense in this case. The thing is that the module is not providing the clocks to the main board. Neither is the WiLink chip consuming clocks from the main board. I thought about specifying clock providers and consumers to be used only by the module and WiLink chip, but I think it's overkill. And we would also have to find a way to prevent the main clock framework from trying to handle them. So, my conclusion was that, even though these *are* clocks, from the main board's perspective they're just specifications of what the module looks like. Does this make sense? -- Cheers, Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> [130626 01:19]: > Hi Tony, > > On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 23:24 -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> [130625 12:43]: > > > On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:35 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > Add device tree bindings documentation for the TI WiLink modules. > > > > Currently only the WLAN part of the WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8 > > > > modules is supported. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> > > > > --- > > [...] > > > > > +Optional properties: > > > > +-------------------- > > > > + > > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > + following: > > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > > This is just the omap refclock, right? If so, you can just pass the > > standard clock phandle. I know we don't yet have the DT clocks merged, > > but Tero just posted another revision of those. > > This is an internal clock. This clock is part of the module that > contains the WiLink chip. It is not associated with the clocks in the > main board (OMAP). > > > > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > + following: > > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > Where does this clock come from? Maybe this can be set based on the > > compatible value if it's completely internal? > > This is also a completely internal clock. My "compatible" values are > based on the WiLink chip itself, not in the module that contains the > chip. There are several modules and they are the ones that specify the > clock frequencies. This data I'm passing here is just to tell the > WiLink chip which frequencies the module uses. > > My driver is for the WiLink chip itself, not to the module (in theory). > So I think having the WiLink values as bindings would be more generic > than having to specify values for each available module (eg. > "lsr-research,tiwi-ble") and mapping those values to specific > frequencies in the driver. > > > > > If this is okay for everyone, can I push this via my tree (which goes to > > > linux-wireless->net->linus)? I think it makes more sense to send the > > > documentation together with the patch that actually implements the DT > > > node parsing in the driver. > > > > If we can use the standard bindings, it might be worth waiting until > > we have the DT clocks available as we have the pdata workaround merged > > anyways. That's because then we don't need to support the custom > > binding later on ;) > > I looked into Tero's patches and I considered using the generic clock > bindings, but I think it doesn't make sense in this case. The thing is > that the module is not providing the clocks to the main board. Neither > is the WiLink chip consuming clocks from the main board. > > I thought about specifying clock providers and consumers to be used only > by the module and WiLink chip, but I think it's overkill. And we would > also have to find a way to prevent the main clock framework from trying > to handle them. > > So, my conclusion was that, even though these *are* clocks, from the > main board's perspective they're just specifications of what the module > looks like. > > Does this make sense? OK yes, in that case looks fine to me: Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
(added mailing lists and everyone back to the thread) On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 23:38 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 06/25/2013 03:35 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > +Optional properties: > > +-------------------- > > + > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > + following: > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > + > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > + following: > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > just a gentle query - why not use frequency itself here in Hz for > refclock and txoclk? I thought about using the actual frequencies, but I decided not to do so, because I'd have to convert them to these values anyway. These values are used to configure the firmware and it uses these "enumerations". > might not another option of using > node { > clocks=<&clk>; > } > > Usually refclock is an external clock source, no? No. In the WiLink case, both refclock and tcxoclock are internal clocks. They are in the module itself and what we need to do is tell the WiLink chip what the module's clocks look like. > the above allows you to do an devm_clk_get and clk_get_rate() to figure > out the exact clock frequency. No, we can't use these calls, because they are internal clocks. Please see my more complete explanation as an answer to Tony's email. Thanks for your review! -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 11:47-20130627, Luciano Coelho wrote: > (added mailing lists and everyone back to the thread) > > On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 23:38 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > On 06/25/2013 03:35 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > +Optional properties: > > > +-------------------- > > > + > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > + following: > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > + > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > + following: > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > > just a gentle query - why not use frequency itself here in Hz for > > refclock and txoclk? > > I thought about using the actual frequencies, but I decided not to do > so, because I'd have to convert them to these values anyway. These > values are used to configure the firmware and it uses these > "enumerations". Could we not hide this under preprocessor macros instead? just wondering of txoclock = <6>; kind of usage.. easy to make mistakes and easier to confuse a new reader :). just my 2 cents. > > > > might not another option of using > > node { > > clocks=<&clk>; > > } > > > > Usually refclock is an external clock source, no? > > No. In the WiLink case, both refclock and tcxoclock are internal > clocks. They are in the module itself and what we need to do is tell > the WiLink chip what the module's clocks look like. > > > > the above allows you to do an devm_clk_get and clk_get_rate() to figure > > out the exact clock frequency. > > No, we can't use these calls, because they are internal clocks. > > Please see my more complete explanation as an answer to Tony's email. K thanks. > > Thanks for your review! Glad to be of help.
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 07:51 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 11:47-20130627, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > (added mailing lists and everyone back to the thread) > > > > On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 23:38 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > > On 06/25/2013 03:35 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > +Optional properties: > > > > +-------------------- > > > > + > > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > + following: > > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > > + > > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > + following: > > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > > > > just a gentle query - why not use frequency itself here in Hz for > > > refclock and txoclk? > > > > I thought about using the actual frequencies, but I decided not to do > > so, because I'd have to convert them to these values anyway. These > > values are used to configure the firmware and it uses these > > "enumerations". > Could we not hide this under preprocessor macros instead? just wondering > of txoclock = <6>; kind of usage.. easy to make mistakes and easier to > confuse a new reader :). Yes, I guess we could create some preprocessor macros for this. But the documentation would remain the same. I can't add preprocessor macros to the bindings documentation. ;) For the actual DTS files, I could add a wilink.dtsi with enumerations for these values so they could be used in the node definitions. But I'm not sure it's going to be that valuable in the end. -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 07:51 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> On 11:47-20130627, Luciano Coelho wrote: >> > (added mailing lists and everyone back to the thread) >> > >> > On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 23:38 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> > > On 06/25/2013 03:35 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote: >> > > > +Optional properties: >> > > > +-------------------- >> > > > + >> > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for >> > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the >> > > > + following: >> > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz >> > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz >> > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz >> > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz >> > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL >> > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL >> > > > + >> > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for >> > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the >> > > > + following: >> > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz >> > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz >> > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz >> > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz >> > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz >> > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz >> > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz >> > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz >> > > > >> > > just a gentle query - why not use frequency itself here in Hz for >> > > refclock and txoclk? >> > >> > I thought about using the actual frequencies, but I decided not to do >> > so, because I'd have to convert them to these values anyway. These >> > values are used to configure the firmware and it uses these >> > "enumerations". >> Could we not hide this under preprocessor macros instead? just wondering >> of txoclock = <6>; kind of usage.. easy to make mistakes and easier to >> confuse a new reader :). > > Yes, I guess we could create some preprocessor macros for this. But the > documentation would remain the same. I can't add preprocessor macros to > the bindings documentation. ;) > > For the actual DTS files, I could add a wilink.dtsi with enumerations > for these values so they could be used in the node definitions. But I'm > not sure it's going to be that valuable in the end. The way GPIO HIGH was defined might help to provide guidance I think :) Regards, NM -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:15 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> wrote: > > For the actual DTS files, I could add a wilink.dtsi with enumerations > > for these values so they could be used in the node definitions. But I'm > > not sure it's going to be that valuable in the end. > The way GPIO HIGH was defined might help to provide guidance I think :) Where? As far as I can see, the GPIO flags are defined in a bitmap. -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 06/27/2013 08:19 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:15 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> wrote: >>> For the actual DTS files, I could add a wilink.dtsi with enumerations >>> for these values so they could be used in the node definitions. But I'm >>> not sure it's going to be that valuable in the end. >> The way GPIO HIGH was defined might help to provide guidance I think :) > > Where? As far as I can see, the GPIO flags are defined in a bitmap. include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h And corresponding kernel header: include/linux/of_gpio.h just a hint. not saying frequencies were defined in header. for systems that define frequencies - example cpufreq OPPs, clock node usage, we do not use indexing to frequency, instead, that is the responsibility of driver to convert frequency back to required index. git grep frequency Documentation/devicetree/bindings gives you how the precedence looks like. Personally, if given a choice, I'd go with actual frequencies rather than indexes.
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:23 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 06/27/2013 08:19 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:15 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> wrote: > >>> For the actual DTS files, I could add a wilink.dtsi with enumerations > >>> for these values so they could be used in the node definitions. But I'm > >>> not sure it's going to be that valuable in the end. > >> The way GPIO HIGH was defined might help to provide guidance I think :) > > > > Where? As far as I can see, the GPIO flags are defined in a bitmap. > > include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h Thanks! I don't see these macros used anywhere, though. > And corresponding kernel header: > include/linux/of_gpio.h This seems to be a completely different thing. This is the header that contains the helper functions to get GPIO-related device tree nodes, isn't it? > just a hint. not saying frequencies were defined in header. for systems > that define frequencies - example cpufreq OPPs, clock node usage, we do > not use indexing to frequency, instead, that is the responsibility of > driver to convert frequency back to required index. > git grep frequency Documentation/devicetree/bindings gives you how the > precedence looks like. > > Personally, if given a choice, I'd go with actual frequencies rather > than indexes. If I do that, I need to add also a separate flag to define whether the XTAL clock is used or not. For instance, we have 26MHz and 26MHz crystal; and 38.4MHz and 38.4MHz crystal... -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:23 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> On 06/27/2013 08:19 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote: >> > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:15 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> wrote: >> >>> For the actual DTS files, I could add a wilink.dtsi with enumerations >> >>> for these values so they could be used in the node definitions. But I'm >> >>> not sure it's going to be that valuable in the end. >> >> The way GPIO HIGH was defined might help to provide guidance I think :) >> > >> > Where? As far as I can see, the GPIO flags are defined in a bitmap. >> >> include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h > > Thanks! I don't see these macros used anywhere, though. umm... I'd think you have'nt looked deep enough / lists :) > >> And corresponding kernel header: >> include/linux/of_gpio.h > > This seems to be a completely different thing. This is the header that > contains the helper functions to get GPIO-related device tree nodes, > isn't it? That is true, but it also contains the flag for level which needs to be in sync with the gpio.h dts header. >> just a hint. not saying frequencies were defined in header. for systems >> that define frequencies - example cpufreq OPPs, clock node usage, we do >> not use indexing to frequency, instead, that is the responsibility of >> driver to convert frequency back to required index. >> git grep frequency Documentation/devicetree/bindings gives you how the >> precedence looks like. >> >> Personally, if given a choice, I'd go with actual frequencies rather >> than indexes. > > If I do that, I need to add also a separate flag to define whether the > XTAL clock is used or not. For instance, we have 26MHz and 26MHz > crystal; and 38.4MHz and 38.4MHz crystal... Yes, you would have to. at the same time, it is easy for module maker to provide dtsi corresponding to exact h/w representation on his module using wilink chip without being worried about weird index value whose meaning is hidden in binding On the flip side, It also allows driver to reject frequencies / configurations that are not supported by the corresponding chip. As I said, just my 2 cents. Personally, I'd like dts files to be as readable as c files without having to dig through bindings document. Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:39 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:23 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >> On 06/27/2013 08:19 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > >> > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:15 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> wrote: > >> >>> For the actual DTS files, I could add a wilink.dtsi with enumerations > >> >>> for these values so they could be used in the node definitions. But I'm > >> >>> not sure it's going to be that valuable in the end. > >> >> The way GPIO HIGH was defined might help to provide guidance I think :) > >> > > >> > Where? As far as I can see, the GPIO flags are defined in a bitmap. > >> > >> include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h > > > > Thanks! I don't see these macros used anywhere, though. > umm... I'd think you have'nt looked deep enough / lists :) If you mean mailing lists, you're right, I didn't. I just did a git grep for the macros and didn't find any users. > >> And corresponding kernel header: > >> include/linux/of_gpio.h > > > > This seems to be a completely different thing. This is the header that > > contains the helper functions to get GPIO-related device tree nodes, > > isn't it? > That is true, but it also contains the flag for level which needs to > be in sync with the gpio.h dts header. > >> just a hint. not saying frequencies were defined in header. for systems > >> that define frequencies - example cpufreq OPPs, clock node usage, we do > >> not use indexing to frequency, instead, that is the responsibility of > >> driver to convert frequency back to required index. > >> git grep frequency Documentation/devicetree/bindings gives you how the > >> precedence looks like. > >> > >> Personally, if given a choice, I'd go with actual frequencies rather > >> than indexes. > > > > If I do that, I need to add also a separate flag to define whether the > > XTAL clock is used or not. For instance, we have 26MHz and 26MHz > > crystal; and 38.4MHz and 38.4MHz crystal... > Yes, you would have to. at the same time, it is easy for module maker > to provide dtsi corresponding to exact h/w representation on his > module using wilink chip without being worried about weird index value > whose meaning is hidden in binding The module makers need to know about the bindings and read the document before they specify the node in DTS. I think for clarity, a comment in the DTS file stating the actual frequency is good enough. Simpler and more efficient (in terms of DT binary size and module code size) than adding the actual frequencies. > On the flip side, It also allows driver to reject frequencies / > configurations that are not supported by the corresponding chip. It's actually much easier to reject frequencies that are not valid with the enumeration. "if (refclock > 5) { bail_out(); }". If I need to check every frequency, I need to add an array of valid frequencies and so on. Waste of code, IMHO. > As I said, just my 2 cents. Personally, I'd like dts files to be as > readable as c files without having to dig through bindings document. As I said before, for readability, adding a comment with the frequency is good enough. This is what I did for PandaES's DTS (not sent out yet): wlan { compatible = "ti,wilink6"; interrupt-parent = <&gpio2>; interrupts = <21 0x4>; /* gpio line 53, high level triggered */ refclock = <2>; /* 38.4 MHz */ }; Looks more readable to me than: wlan { compatible = "ti,wilink6"; interrupt-parent = <&gpio2>; interrupts = <21 0x4>; /* gpio line 53, high level triggered */ refclock = <38400>; refclock_xtal = <0>; }; The macro idea sounds better to me, but in this case this code is so simple that I don't think it's really worth it. And, from another point of view, I see this as only a specification of the module's details. The frequency value is not really used anywhere outside the module, so we don't see it. I don't think there's a good reason to expose the actual frequency to the kernel (and parse it back to the values the firmware needs), since nothing else inside the kernel will care about it. -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 06/27/2013 01:51 PM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:39 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:23 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>> On 06/27/2013 08:19 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:15 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> wrote: >>>>>>> For the actual DTS files, I could add a wilink.dtsi with enumerations >>>>>>> for these values so they could be used in the node definitions. But I'm >>>>>>> not sure it's going to be that valuable in the end. >>>>>> The way GPIO HIGH was defined might help to provide guidance I think :) >>>>> >>>>> Where? As far as I can see, the GPIO flags are defined in a bitmap. >>>> >>>> include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h >>> >>> Thanks! I don't see these macros used anywhere, though. >> umm... I'd think you have'nt looked deep enough / lists :) > > If you mean mailing lists, you're right, I didn't. I just did a git > grep for the macros and didn't find any users. git grep "GPIO_ACTIVE_[HIGH|LOW]" arch/arm/boot/dts/|wc -l 344 on next-20130626. anyways, besides the point. >>> This seems to be a completely different thing. This is the header that >>> contains the helper functions to get GPIO-related device tree nodes, >>> isn't it? >> That is true, but it also contains the flag for level which needs to >> be in sync with the gpio.h dts header. >>>> just a hint. not saying frequencies were defined in header. for systems >>>> that define frequencies - example cpufreq OPPs, clock node usage, we do >>>> not use indexing to frequency, instead, that is the responsibility of >>>> driver to convert frequency back to required index. >>>> git grep frequency Documentation/devicetree/bindings gives you how the >>>> precedence looks like. >>>> >>>> Personally, if given a choice, I'd go with actual frequencies rather >>>> than indexes. >>> >>> If I do that, I need to add also a separate flag to define whether the >>> XTAL clock is used or not. For instance, we have 26MHz and 26MHz >>> crystal; and 38.4MHz and 38.4MHz crystal... >> Yes, you would have to. at the same time, it is easy for module maker >> to provide dtsi corresponding to exact h/w representation on his >> module using wilink chip without being worried about weird index value >> whose meaning is hidden in binding > > The module makers need to know about the bindings and read the document > before they specify the node in DTS. I think for clarity, a comment in > the DTS file stating the actual frequency is good enough. Simpler and > more efficient (in terms of DT binary size and module code size) than > adding the actual frequencies. > > >> On the flip side, It also allows driver to reject frequencies / >> configurations that are not supported by the corresponding chip. > > It's actually much easier to reject frequencies that are not valid with > the enumeration. "if (refclock > 5) { bail_out(); }". If I need to > check every frequency, I need to add an array of valid frequencies and > so on. Waste of code, IMHO. > > >> As I said, just my 2 cents. Personally, I'd like dts files to be as >> readable as c files without having to dig through bindings document. > > As I said before, for readability, adding a comment with the frequency > is good enough. This is what I did for PandaES's DTS (not sent out > yet): > > wlan { > compatible = "ti,wilink6"; > interrupt-parent = <&gpio2>; > interrupts = <21 0x4>; /* gpio line 53, high level triggered */ > refclock = <2>; /* 38.4 MHz */ > }; > > Looks more readable to me than: > > wlan { > compatible = "ti,wilink6"; > interrupt-parent = <&gpio2>; > interrupts = <21 0x4>; /* gpio line 53, high level triggered */ > refclock = <38400>; > refclock_xtal = <0>; > }; > > The macro idea sounds better to me, but in this case this code is so > simple that I don't think it's really worth it. > > And, from another point of view, I see this as only a specification of > the module's details. The frequency value is not really used anywhere > outside the module, so we don't see it. I don't think there's a good > reason to expose the actual frequency to the kernel (and parse it back > to the values the firmware needs), since nothing else inside the kernel > will care about it. Overview: we are adding bindings for Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt Which I believe is intended to be generic. Current frequencies supported for tcxoclock is the following for WiLink7 + 0 = 19.200 MHz + 1 = 26.000 MHz + 2 = 38.400 MHz + 3 = 52.000 MHz + 4 = 16.368 MHz + 5 = 32.736 MHz + 6 = 16.800 MHz + 7 = 33.600 MHz Say wilink9 comes along and redefines this map OR introduces support for 20MHz support making the map 0-8, you'd no longer be able to support this map. or say a new update of firmware magically changes this mapping or something unexpected. If the translation and validation is done in the driver, it is trivial to handle without redefining the binding and breaking older dtbs (if relevant) Indexes to another entity is always a maintenance burden in the longer run and needs judicious control. If it is possible to avoid it by selecting the right parameters, I am a hard advocate for the same.
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 14:12 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 06/27/2013 01:51 PM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:39 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:23 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >>>> On 06/27/2013 08:19 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 08:15 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> For the actual DTS files, I could add a wilink.dtsi with enumerations > >>>>>>> for these values so they could be used in the node definitions. But I'm > >>>>>>> not sure it's going to be that valuable in the end. > >>>>>> The way GPIO HIGH was defined might help to provide guidance I think :) > >>>>> > >>>>> Where? As far as I can see, the GPIO flags are defined in a bitmap. > >>>> > >>>> include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h > >>> > >>> Thanks! I don't see these macros used anywhere, though. > >> umm... I'd think you have'nt looked deep enough / lists :) > > > > If you mean mailing lists, you're right, I didn't. I just did a git > > grep for the macros and didn't find any users. > git grep "GPIO_ACTIVE_[HIGH|LOW]" arch/arm/boot/dts/|wc -l > 344 > on next-20130626. anyways, besides the point. > > > >>> This seems to be a completely different thing. This is the header that > >>> contains the helper functions to get GPIO-related device tree nodes, > >>> isn't it? > >> That is true, but it also contains the flag for level which needs to > >> be in sync with the gpio.h dts header. > >>>> just a hint. not saying frequencies were defined in header. for systems > >>>> that define frequencies - example cpufreq OPPs, clock node usage, we do > >>>> not use indexing to frequency, instead, that is the responsibility of > >>>> driver to convert frequency back to required index. > >>>> git grep frequency Documentation/devicetree/bindings gives you how the > >>>> precedence looks like. > >>>> > >>>> Personally, if given a choice, I'd go with actual frequencies rather > >>>> than indexes. > >>> > >>> If I do that, I need to add also a separate flag to define whether the > >>> XTAL clock is used or not. For instance, we have 26MHz and 26MHz > >>> crystal; and 38.4MHz and 38.4MHz crystal... > >> Yes, you would have to. at the same time, it is easy for module maker > >> to provide dtsi corresponding to exact h/w representation on his > >> module using wilink chip without being worried about weird index value > >> whose meaning is hidden in binding > > > > The module makers need to know about the bindings and read the document > > before they specify the node in DTS. I think for clarity, a comment in > > the DTS file stating the actual frequency is good enough. Simpler and > > more efficient (in terms of DT binary size and module code size) than > > adding the actual frequencies. > > > > > >> On the flip side, It also allows driver to reject frequencies / > >> configurations that are not supported by the corresponding chip. > > > > It's actually much easier to reject frequencies that are not valid with > > the enumeration. "if (refclock > 5) { bail_out(); }". If I need to > > check every frequency, I need to add an array of valid frequencies and > > so on. Waste of code, IMHO. > > > > > >> As I said, just my 2 cents. Personally, I'd like dts files to be as > >> readable as c files without having to dig through bindings document. > > > > As I said before, for readability, adding a comment with the frequency > > is good enough. This is what I did for PandaES's DTS (not sent out > > yet): > > > > wlan { > > compatible = "ti,wilink6"; > > interrupt-parent = <&gpio2>; > > interrupts = <21 0x4>; /* gpio line 53, high level triggered */ > > refclock = <2>; /* 38.4 MHz */ > > }; > > > > Looks more readable to me than: > > > > wlan { > > compatible = "ti,wilink6"; > > interrupt-parent = <&gpio2>; > > interrupts = <21 0x4>; /* gpio line 53, high level triggered */ > > refclock = <38400>; > > refclock_xtal = <0>; > > }; > > > > The macro idea sounds better to me, but in this case this code is so > > simple that I don't think it's really worth it. > > > > And, from another point of view, I see this as only a specification of > > the module's details. The frequency value is not really used anywhere > > outside the module, so we don't see it. I don't think there's a good > > reason to expose the actual frequency to the kernel (and parse it back > > to the values the firmware needs), since nothing else inside the kernel > > will care about it. > Overview: we are adding bindings for > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt Which I > believe is intended to be generic. > > Current frequencies supported for tcxoclock is the following for WiLink7 > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > Say wilink9 comes along and redefines this map OR introduces support for > 20MHz support making the map 0-8, you'd no longer be able to support > this map. or say a new update of firmware magically changes this mapping > or something unexpected. No problem with adding 20MHz support. Look at 6 = 16.800 MHz. That's already out of order, so why would 20MHz have to change the mapping? It is true that stupid changes happen in the firmware from time to time. But if it happens, the translation could still be done in the driver. > If the translation and validation is done in the driver, it is trivial > to handle without redefining the binding and breaking older dtbs (if > relevant) The validation can still be done in the driver. I don't think anything has to break here. The bindings document is the de-facto specifications of this stuff. If something in the lower layers (ie. firmware) breaks, the driver can do the translation without having to change anything in the DTS. > Indexes to another entity is always a maintenance burden in the longer > run and needs judicious control. If it is possible to avoid it by > selecting the right parameters, I am a hard advocate for the same. I tend to agree. But you need a balance. In theory you're right. But I think if you take the real world example, it is over-engineering. Anyway, if you *really* think this needs to be changed, I think we're in a deadlock here and I'd like to hear other people's opinions. I don't mind making the change, but I'm still not convinced it is worth it, since it just adds complexity. And hey, this is too much bikeshedding for such a small detail. -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 06/27/2013 02:46 PM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 14:12 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: [...] >> Indexes to another entity is always a maintenance burden in the longer >> run and needs judicious control. If it is possible to avoid it by >> selecting the right parameters, I am a hard advocate for the same. > > I tend to agree. But you need a balance. In theory you're right. But > I think if you take the real world example, it is over-engineering. > > Anyway, if you *really* think this needs to be changed, I think we're in > a deadlock here and I'd like to hear other people's opinions. I don't > mind making the change, but I'm still not convinced it is worth it, > since it just adds complexity. > > And hey, this is too much bikeshedding for such a small detail. Lol :) Alrite, if no one else is complaining, I am not going to block it either.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > Add device tree bindings documentation for the TI WiLink modules. > Currently only the WLAN part of the WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8 > modules is supported. > > Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> > --- > > I created a new directory under net to contain wireless bindings documentation. > > The actual implementation in the driver will follow separately. > > .../devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..d8e8bfbb > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ > +TI WiLink Wireless Modules Device Tree Bindings > +=============================================== > + > +The WiLink modules provide wireless connectivity, such as WLAN, > +Bluetooth, FM and NFC. > + > +There are several different modules available, which can be grouped by > +their generation: WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8. WiLink4 is not > +currently supported with device tree. > + > +Currently, only the WLAN portion of the modules is supported with > +device tree. > + > +Required properties: > +-------------------- > + > +- compatible: should be "ti,wilink6", "ti,wilink7" or "ti,wilink8" > +- interrupt-parent: the interrupt controller > +- interrupts: out-of-band WLAN interrupt > + See the interrupt controller's bindings documentation for > + detailed definition. > + > +Optional properties: > +-------------------- > + > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > + following: > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > + > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > + following: > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > + 7 = 33.600 MHz This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for: refclk { compatible = "fixed-clock"; #clock-cells = <0>; clock-frequency = <19200000>; } wilink { compatible = "ti,wilink7"; interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; interrupts = <0 1 1>; clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; }; Could you not use them? Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > +Optional properties: > > +-------------------- > > + > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > + following: > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > + > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > + following: > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for: > > refclk { > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > #clock-cells = <0>; > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > } > > wilink { > compatible = "ti,wilink7"; > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; > interrupts = <0 1 1>; > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; > }; > > Could you not use them? Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are internal clocks in the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside. Does it make sense to register them with the clock framework? -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > +Optional properties: > > > +-------------------- > > > + > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > + following: > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > + > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > + following: > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for: > > > > refclk { > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > #clock-cells = <0>; > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > } > > > > wilink { > > compatible = "ti,wilink7"; > > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; > > interrupts = <0 1 1>; > > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; > > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; > > }; > > > > Could you not use them? > > Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are internal clocks in > the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside. Does it make sense > to register them with the clock framework? Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I think it makes sense to use it -- people already understand the common bindings, and it's less code to add add to the kernel. I don't think the fact these clocks are internal should prevent us from describing them as we would an external clock. Perhaps Mike Turquette [Cc'd] has an opinion on the matter. Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
(fixed Mike's address) On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:21 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > +Optional properties: > > > > +-------------------- > > > > + > > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > + following: > > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > > + > > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > + following: > > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for: > > > > > > refclk { > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > #clock-cells = <0>; > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > } > > > > > > wilink { > > > compatible = "ti,wilink7"; > > > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; > > > interrupts = <0 1 1>; > > > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; > > > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; > > > }; > > > > > > Could you not use them? > > > > Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are internal clocks in > > the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside. Does it make sense > > to register them with the clock framework? > > Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I think it > makes sense to use it -- people already understand the common bindings, > and it's less code to add add to the kernel. I don't think the fact > these clocks are internal should prevent us from describing them as we > would an external clock. Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for the suggestion! I think it will look much better. And now that I dug a bit more into the code, I can see that there are only structs being populated, so there shouldn't be any other side-effects. > Perhaps Mike Turquette [Cc'd] has an opinion on the matter. Experts' opinions are appreciated. :) -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[resending with the correct address for Mike Turquette] On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > +Optional properties: > > > +-------------------- > > > + > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > + following: > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > + > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > + following: > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for: > > > > refclk { > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > #clock-cells = <0>; > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > } > > > > wilink { > > compatible = "ti,wilink7"; > > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; > > interrupts = <0 1 1>; > > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; > > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; > > }; > > > > Could you not use them? > > Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are internal clocks in > the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside. Does it make sense > to register them with the clock framework? Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I think it makes sense to use it -- people already understand the common bindings, and it's less code to add add to the kernel. I don't think the fact these clocks are internal should prevent us from describing them as we would an external clock. Perhaps Mike Turquette [Cc'd] has an opinion on the matter. Thanks, Mark.
[resending again with the doubly corrected address for Mike Turquette, apologies for the spam] On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > +Optional properties: > > > +-------------------- > > > + > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > + following: > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > + > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > + following: > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for: > > > > refclk { > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > #clock-cells = <0>; > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > } > > > > wilink { > > compatible = "ti,wilink7"; > > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; > > interrupts = <0 1 1>; > > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; > > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; > > }; > > > > Could you not use them? > > Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are internal clocks in > the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside. Does it make sense > to register them with the clock framework? Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I think it makes sense to use it -- people already understand the common bindings, and it's less code to add add to the kernel. I don't think the fact these clocks are internal should prevent us from describing them as we would an external clock. Perhaps Mike Turquette [Cc'd] has an opinion on the matter. Thanks, Mark.
On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:31 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > (fixed Mike's address) > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:21 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > +Optional properties: > > > > > +-------------------- > > > > > + > > > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > > + following: > > > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > > > + > > > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > > + following: > > > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > > > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for: > > > > > > > > refclk { > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > > #clock-cells = <0>; > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > > } > > > > > > > > wilink { > > > > compatible = "ti,wilink7"; > > > > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; > > > > interrupts = <0 1 1>; > > > > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; > > > > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > Could you not use them? > > > > > > Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are internal clocks in > > > the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside. Does it make sense > > > to register them with the clock framework? > > > > Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I think it > > makes sense to use it -- people already understand the common bindings, > > and it's less code to add add to the kernel. I don't think the fact > > these clocks are internal should prevent us from describing them as we > > would an external clock. > > Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for the suggestion! I think it will look > much better. And now that I dug a bit more into the code, I can see > that there are only structs being populated, so there shouldn't be any > other side-effects. Hmmm, one thing that escaped me. Besides the frequency, I also need a boolean that tells if the clock is XTAL or not. I can't figure out how to pass this if I use the generic clock framework. Any suggestions? -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:22:11PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:31 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > (fixed Mike's address) > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:21 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > +Optional properties: > > > > > > +-------------------- > > > > > > + > > > > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > > > + following: > > > > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > > > > + > > > > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > > > + following: > > > > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > > > > > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for: > > > > > > > > > > refclk { > > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > > > #clock-cells = <0>; > > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > wilink { > > > > > compatible = "ti,wilink7"; > > > > > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; > > > > > interrupts = <0 1 1>; > > > > > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; > > > > > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > Could you not use them? > > > > > > > > Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are internal clocks in > > > > the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside. Does it make sense > > > > to register them with the clock framework? > > > > > > Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I think it > > > makes sense to use it -- people already understand the common bindings, > > > and it's less code to add add to the kernel. I don't think the fact > > > these clocks are internal should prevent us from describing them as we > > > would an external clock. > > > > Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for the suggestion! I think it will look > > much better. And now that I dug a bit more into the code, I can see > > that there are only structs being populated, so there shouldn't be any > > other side-effects. > > Hmmm, one thing that escaped me. Besides the frequency, I also need a > boolean that tells if the clock is XTAL or not. I can't figure out how > to pass this if I use the generic clock framework. Any suggestions? Could you use clock-output-names for that ? XTAL clock: refclk { compatible = "fixed-clock"; #clock cells = <0>; clock-frequency = <19200000>; clock-output-names = "xtal"; }; non-XTAL clock: refclk { compatible = "fixed-clock"; #clock cells = <0>; clock-frequency = <19200000>; clock-output-names = "osc"; /* any better name ? */ };
On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 14:41 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:22:11PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:31 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > (fixed Mike's address) > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:21 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > > +Optional properties: > > > > > > > +-------------------- > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > > > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > > > > + following: > > > > > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > > > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > > > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > > > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > > > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > > > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > > > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > > > > + following: > > > > > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > > > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > > > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > > > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > > > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > > > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > > > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > > > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for: > > > > > > > > > > > > refclk { > > > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > > > > #clock-cells = <0>; > > > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > wilink { > > > > > > compatible = "ti,wilink7"; > > > > > > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; > > > > > > interrupts = <0 1 1>; > > > > > > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; > > > > > > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you not use them? > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are internal clocks in > > > > > the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside. Does it make sense > > > > > to register them with the clock framework? > > > > > > > > Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I think it > > > > makes sense to use it -- people already understand the common bindings, > > > > and it's less code to add add to the kernel. I don't think the fact > > > > these clocks are internal should prevent us from describing them as we > > > > would an external clock. > > > > > > Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for the suggestion! I think it will look > > > much better. And now that I dug a bit more into the code, I can see > > > that there are only structs being populated, so there shouldn't be any > > > other side-effects. > > > > Hmmm, one thing that escaped me. Besides the frequency, I also need a > > boolean that tells if the clock is XTAL or not. I can't figure out how > > to pass this if I use the generic clock framework. Any suggestions? > > Could you use clock-output-names for that ? > > XTAL clock: > > refclk { > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > #clock cells = <0>; > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > clock-output-names = "xtal"; > }; > > non-XTAL clock: > > refclk { > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > #clock cells = <0>; > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > clock-output-names = "osc"; /* any better name ? */ > }; This starts looking a bit hacky. Using the output name as a flag is not very pretty. I think it would be better to have a separate flag for it in the wlan node. Like an optional "refclock-xtal" boolean or something. The downside of this is that we would be adding information about the clock details in the wilink node. :( OTOH, we could add a flag to the generic clock binding? A new optional boolean that tells whether the clock is XTAL or not: refclk { compatible = "fixed-clock"; #clock cells = <0>; clock-frequency = <19200000>; clock-xtal; }; Do you think that would make sense? -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 03:13:52PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 14:41 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:22:11PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:31 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > (fixed Mike's address) > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:21 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > > > +Optional properties: > > > > > > > > +-------------------- > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > > > > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > > > > > + following: > > > > > > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > > > > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > > > > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > > > > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > > > > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > > > > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > > > > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > > > > > + following: > > > > > > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > > > > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > > > > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > > > > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > > > > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > > > > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > > > > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > > > > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > refclk { > > > > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > > > > > #clock-cells = <0>; > > > > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wilink { > > > > > > > compatible = "ti,wilink7"; > > > > > > > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; > > > > > > > interrupts = <0 1 1>; > > > > > > > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; > > > > > > > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you not use them? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are internal clocks in > > > > > > the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside. Does it make sense > > > > > > to register them with the clock framework? > > > > > > > > > > Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I think it > > > > > makes sense to use it -- people already understand the common bindings, > > > > > and it's less code to add add to the kernel. I don't think the fact > > > > > these clocks are internal should prevent us from describing them as we > > > > > would an external clock. > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for the suggestion! I think it will look > > > > much better. And now that I dug a bit more into the code, I can see > > > > that there are only structs being populated, so there shouldn't be any > > > > other side-effects. > > > > > > Hmmm, one thing that escaped me. Besides the frequency, I also need a > > > boolean that tells if the clock is XTAL or not. I can't figure out how > > > to pass this if I use the generic clock framework. Any suggestions? > > > > Could you use clock-output-names for that ? > > > > XTAL clock: > > > > refclk { > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > #clock cells = <0>; > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > clock-output-names = "xtal"; > > }; > > > > non-XTAL clock: > > > > refclk { > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > #clock cells = <0>; > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > clock-output-names = "osc"; /* any better name ? */ > > }; > > This starts looking a bit hacky. Using the output name as a flag is not > very pretty. > > I think it would be better to have a separate flag for it in the wlan > node. Like an optional "refclock-xtal" boolean or something. The > downside of this is that we would be adding information about the clock > details in the wilink node. :( > > OTOH, we could add a flag to the generic clock binding? A new optional > boolean that tells whether the clock is XTAL or not: > > refclk { > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > #clock cells = <0>; > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > clock-xtal; > }; > > Do you think that would make sense? sure, that looks alright to me. Surely there are other devices out there who want to know if the clock comes from a crystal or not ?!? cheers
On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 15:18 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 03:13:52PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 14:41 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:22:11PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:31 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > (fixed Mike's address) > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:21 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > > > > +Optional properties: > > > > > > > > > +-------------------- > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > > > > > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > > > > > > + following: > > > > > > > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > > > > > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > > > > > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > > > > > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > > > > > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > > > > > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > > > > > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > > > > > > + following: > > > > > > > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > > > > > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > > > > > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > > > > > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > > > > > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > > > > > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > > > > > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > > > > > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > refclk { > > > > > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > > > > > > #clock-cells = <0>; > > > > > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wilink { > > > > > > > > compatible = "ti,wilink7"; > > > > > > > > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; > > > > > > > > interrupts = <0 1 1>; > > > > > > > > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; > > > > > > > > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you not use them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are internal clocks in > > > > > > > the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside. Does it make sense > > > > > > > to register them with the clock framework? > > > > > > > > > > > > Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I think it > > > > > > makes sense to use it -- people already understand the common bindings, > > > > > > and it's less code to add add to the kernel. I don't think the fact > > > > > > these clocks are internal should prevent us from describing them as we > > > > > > would an external clock. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for the suggestion! I think it will look > > > > > much better. And now that I dug a bit more into the code, I can see > > > > > that there are only structs being populated, so there shouldn't be any > > > > > other side-effects. > > > > > > > > Hmmm, one thing that escaped me. Besides the frequency, I also need a > > > > boolean that tells if the clock is XTAL or not. I can't figure out how > > > > to pass this if I use the generic clock framework. Any suggestions? > > > > > > Could you use clock-output-names for that ? > > > > > > XTAL clock: > > > > > > refclk { > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > #clock cells = <0>; > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > clock-output-names = "xtal"; > > > }; > > > > > > non-XTAL clock: > > > > > > refclk { > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > #clock cells = <0>; > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > clock-output-names = "osc"; /* any better name ? */ > > > }; > > > > This starts looking a bit hacky. Using the output name as a flag is not > > very pretty. > > > > I think it would be better to have a separate flag for it in the wlan > > node. Like an optional "refclock-xtal" boolean or something. The > > downside of this is that we would be adding information about the clock > > details in the wilink node. :( > > > > OTOH, we could add a flag to the generic clock binding? A new optional > > boolean that tells whether the clock is XTAL or not: > > > > refclk { > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > #clock cells = <0>; > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > clock-xtal; > > }; > > > > Do you think that would make sense? > > sure, that looks alright to me. Surely there are other devices out there > who want to know if the clock comes from a crystal or not ?!? Mike, what do you think about this idea? If it sounds okay to you, I can cook up a patch adding this flag. -- Cheers, Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 16:21 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 15:18 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 03:13:52PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 14:41 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:22:11PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:31 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > (fixed Mike's address) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:21 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +Optional properties: > > > > > > > > > > +-------------------- > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for > > > > > > > > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > > > > > > > + following: > > > > > > > > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > > > > > > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > > > > > > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > > > > > > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > > > > > > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > > > > > > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for > > > > > > > > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the > > > > > > > > > > + following: > > > > > > > > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > > > > > > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > > > > > > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > > > > > > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > > > > > > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > > > > > > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > > > > > > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > > > > > > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > refclk { > > > > > > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > > > > > > > #clock-cells = <0>; > > > > > > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wilink { > > > > > > > > > compatible = "ti,wilink7"; > > > > > > > > > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; > > > > > > > > > interrupts = <0 1 1>; > > > > > > > > > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; > > > > > > > > > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you not use them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are internal clocks in > > > > > > > > the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside. Does it make sense > > > > > > > > to register them with the clock framework? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I think it > > > > > > > makes sense to use it -- people already understand the common bindings, > > > > > > > and it's less code to add add to the kernel. I don't think the fact > > > > > > > these clocks are internal should prevent us from describing them as we > > > > > > > would an external clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for the suggestion! I think it will look > > > > > > much better. And now that I dug a bit more into the code, I can see > > > > > > that there are only structs being populated, so there shouldn't be any > > > > > > other side-effects. > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm, one thing that escaped me. Besides the frequency, I also need a > > > > > boolean that tells if the clock is XTAL or not. I can't figure out how > > > > > to pass this if I use the generic clock framework. Any suggestions? > > > > > > > > Could you use clock-output-names for that ? > > > > > > > > XTAL clock: > > > > > > > > refclk { > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > > #clock cells = <0>; > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > > clock-output-names = "xtal"; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > non-XTAL clock: > > > > > > > > refclk { > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > > #clock cells = <0>; > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > > clock-output-names = "osc"; /* any better name ? */ > > > > }; > > > > > > This starts looking a bit hacky. Using the output name as a flag is not > > > very pretty. > > > > > > I think it would be better to have a separate flag for it in the wlan > > > node. Like an optional "refclock-xtal" boolean or something. The > > > downside of this is that we would be adding information about the clock > > > details in the wilink node. :( > > > > > > OTOH, we could add a flag to the generic clock binding? A new optional > > > boolean that tells whether the clock is XTAL or not: > > > > > > refclk { > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > #clock cells = <0>; > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > clock-xtal; > > > }; > > > > > > Do you think that would make sense? > > > > sure, that looks alright to me. Surely there are other devices out there > > who want to know if the clock comes from a crystal or not ?!? > > Mike, what do you think about this idea? If it sounds okay to you, I can > cook up a patch adding this flag. Hmmm... I started implementing this whole thing, but using these clocks as "fixed-clock"s is not so straightforward. The problem is that I would need to register my driver as a clock provider and add the OF match for "fixed-clock". If I do that, all the other "fixed-clock" nodes would be passed to my driver too, which is wrong. Or, the platform should register the "fixed-clock" match, but this would be wrong too, since it would find *my* fixed-clocks. The only thing I can come up with is to make a small clock driver (maybe even inside the WiLink module itself) that registers a new type of clock, "ti,wilink-clock" or something. But this would really be overkill, wouldn't it? Any other ideas? -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Luciano, On Monday 01 July 2013 15:39:30 Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 16:21 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 15:18 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 03:13:52PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 14:41 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:22:11PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:31 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > > (fixed Mike's address) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:21 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +Optional properties: > > > > > > > > > > > +-------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency > > > > > > > > > > > (required for > > > > > > > > > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be > > > > > > > > > > > one of the > > > > > > > > > > > + following: > > > > > > > > > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL > > > > > > > > > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency > > > > > > > > > > > (required for > > > > > > > > > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be > > > > > > > > > > > one of the > > > > > > > > > > > + following: > > > > > > > > > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock > > > > > > > > > > bindings for: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > refclk { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > > > > > > > > #clock-cells = <0>; > > > > > > > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wilink { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatible = "ti,wilink7"; > > > > > > > > > > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>; > > > > > > > > > > interrupts = <0 1 1>; > > > > > > > > > > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>; > > > > > > > > > > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk"; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you not use them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are > > > > > > > > > internal clocks in the modules, they cannot be accessed from > > > > > > > > > outside. Does it make sense to register them with the clock > > > > > > > > > framework? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I > > > > > > > > think it makes sense to use it -- people already understand > > > > > > > > the common bindings, and it's less code to add add to the > > > > > > > > kernel. I don't think the fact these clocks are internal > > > > > > > > should prevent us from describing them as we would an external > > > > > > > > clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for the suggestion! I think it > > > > > > > will look much better. And now that I dug a bit more into the > > > > > > > code, I can see that there are only structs being populated, so > > > > > > > there shouldn't be any other side-effects. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm, one thing that escaped me. Besides the frequency, I also > > > > > > need a boolean that tells if the clock is XTAL or not. I can't > > > > > > figure out how to pass this if I use the generic clock framework. > > > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > > > > > > > Could you use clock-output-names for that ? > > > > > > > > > > XTAL clock: > > > > > > > > > > refclk { > > > > > > > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > > > #clock cells = <0>; > > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > > > clock-output-names = "xtal"; > > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > non-XTAL clock: > > > > > > > > > > refclk { > > > > > > > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > > > #clock cells = <0>; > > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > > > clock-output-names = "osc"; /* any better name ? */ > > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > This starts looking a bit hacky. Using the output name as a flag is > > > > not very pretty. > > > > > > > > I think it would be better to have a separate flag for it in the wlan > > > > node. Like an optional "refclock-xtal" boolean or something. The > > > > downside of this is that we would be adding information about the > > > > clock details in the wilink node. :( > > > > > > > > OTOH, we could add a flag to the generic clock binding? A new optional > > > > boolean that tells whether the clock is XTAL or not: > > > > > > > > refclk { > > > > > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock"; > > > > #clock cells = <0>; > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>; > > > > clock-xtal; > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > Do you think that would make sense? > > > > > > sure, that looks alright to me. Surely there are other devices out there > > > who want to know if the clock comes from a crystal or not ?!? > > > > Mike, what do you think about this idea? If it sounds okay to you, I can > > cook up a patch adding this flag. > > Hmmm... I started implementing this whole thing, but using these clocks > as "fixed-clock"s is not so straightforward. The problem is that I > would need to register my driver as a clock provider and add the OF > match for "fixed-clock". > > If I do that, all the other "fixed-clock" nodes would be passed to my > driver too, which is wrong. Or, the platform should register the > "fixed-clock" match, but this would be wrong too, since it would find > *my* fixed-clocks. > > The only thing I can come up with is to make a small clock driver (maybe > even inside the WiLink module itself) that registers a new type of > clock, "ti,wilink-clock" or something. But this would really be > overkill, wouldn't it? > > Any other ideas? One possibility would be to just call clk_get_rate() on the clock from the WiLink driver, which would return the fixed frequency specified in DT, and configure the WiLink hardware accordingly. This might be a bit hackish though.
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 01:58 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Luciano, Hi Laurent, > On Monday 01 July 2013 15:39:30 Luciano Coelho wrote: > > The only thing I can come up with is to make a small clock driver (maybe > > even inside the WiLink module itself) that registers a new type of > > clock, "ti,wilink-clock" or something. But this would really be > > overkill, wouldn't it? > > > > Any other ideas? > > One possibility would be to just call clk_get_rate() on the clock from the > WiLink driver, which would return the fixed frequency specified in DT, and > configure the WiLink hardware accordingly. This might be a bit hackish though. The problem is not get the rate itself, the problem is knowing whether the clock is XTAL or not. The WiLink chip uses the clock in a slightly different way if it is XTAL, due to some stabilization time constraints. -- Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d8e8bfbb --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +TI WiLink Wireless Modules Device Tree Bindings +=============================================== + +The WiLink modules provide wireless connectivity, such as WLAN, +Bluetooth, FM and NFC. + +There are several different modules available, which can be grouped by +their generation: WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8. WiLink4 is not +currently supported with device tree. + +Currently, only the WLAN portion of the modules is supported with +device tree. + +Required properties: +-------------------- + +- compatible: should be "ti,wilink6", "ti,wilink7" or "ti,wilink8" +- interrupt-parent: the interrupt controller +- interrupts: out-of-band WLAN interrupt + See the interrupt controller's bindings documentation for + detailed definition. + +Optional properties: +-------------------- + +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be one of the + following: + 0 = 19.2 MHz + 1 = 26.0 MHz + 2 = 38.4 MHz + 3 = 52.0 MHz + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL + +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be one of the + following: + 0 = 19.200 MHz + 1 = 26.000 MHz + 2 = 38.400 MHz + 3 = 52.000 MHz + 4 = 16.368 MHz + 5 = 32.736 MHz + 6 = 16.800 MHz + 7 = 33.600 MHz
Add device tree bindings documentation for the TI WiLink modules. Currently only the WLAN part of the WiLink6, WiLink7 and WiLink8 modules is supported. Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> --- I created a new directory under net to contain wireless bindings documentation. The actual implementation in the driver will follow separately. .../devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ti-wilink.txt