On 09/18/2013 08:40 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> This patch determines the register bank for clock enable/disable and reset
> based on the clock ID instead of hardcoding it in the tables describing the
> clocks. This results in less data to be maintained in the tables, making the
> code easier to understand. The full benefit of the change will be realized 
> once
> also other clocktypes will be table based.

>  drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra114.c |  483 
> ++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  drivers/clk/tegra/clk.c          |  105 ++++++++
>  drivers/clk/tegra/clk.h          |    3 +

Can't this change be applied to the Tegra20/30 diffstat too, for even
more negative diffstat? Similar comments probably apply for other
patches in the series.

> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra114.c 
> b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra114.c

>  #define TEGRA_INIT_DATA_MUX(_name, _con_id, _dev_id, _parents, _offset,      
> \
> -                         _clk_num, _regs, _gate_flags, _clk_id)      \
> +                         _clk_num, _gate_flags, _clk_id)     \
>       TEGRA_INIT_DATA_TABLE(_name, _con_id, _dev_id, _parents, _offset,\
> -                     30, MASK(2), 0, 0, 8, 1, 0, _regs, _clk_num,    \
> -                     periph_clk_enb_refcnt, _gate_flags, _clk_id,    \
> -                     _parents##_idx, 0)
> +                     30, MASK(2), 0, 0, 8, 1, 0, 0,\
> +                     _clk_num, periph_clk_enb_refcnt, _gate_flags,\
> +                      _clk_id, _parents##_idx, 0)

Nit: A simple s/_regs/0/ without re-flowing the parameters would have
made that diff smaller, and more similar to all the others...

> @@ -1606,9 +1538,9 @@ static void __init tegra114_audio_clk_init(void __iomem 
> *clk_base)
>       clk = tegra_clk_register_divider("audio0_div", "audio0_doubler",
>                               clk_base + AUDIO_SYNC_DOUBLER, 0, 0, 24, 1,
>                               0, &clk_doubler_lock);
> -     clk = tegra_clk_register_periph_gate("audio0_2x", "audio0_div",
> +     clk = tegra114_periph_gate_helper("audio0_2x", "audio0_div",
>                                 TEGRA_PERIPH_NO_RESET, clk_base,
> -                               CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 113, &periph_v_regs,
> +                               CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 113,
>                                 periph_clk_enb_refcnt);
>       clk_register_clkdev(clk, "audio0_2x", NULL);
>       clks[TEGRA114_CLK_AUDIO0_2X] = clk;

It sure seems like much of this repetitive code could be driven from a
data table rather than cut/paste code. Perhaps a later patch in this
series cleans this up?

> @@ -2030,21 +1949,10 @@ static __init void tegra114_periph_clk_init(void 
> __iomem *clk_base)
...
> -     /* dsib */
> -     clk = clk_register_mux(NULL, "dsib_mux", mux_plld_out0_plld2_out0,
> -                            ARRAY_SIZE(mux_plld_out0_plld2_out0), 0,
> -                            clk_base + PLLD2_BASE, 25, 1, 0, &pll_d2_lock);
> -     clks[TEGRA114_CLK_DSIB_MUX] = clk;
> -     clk = tegra_clk_register_periph_gate("dsib", "dsib_mux", 0, clk_base,
> -                                 0, 82, &periph_u_regs,
> -                                 periph_clk_enb_refcnt);
> -     clks[TEGRA114_CLK_DSIB] = clk;
> -

Why delete dsib? I don't think it got added elsewhere in this patch.

> @@ -2077,21 +1982,36 @@ static __init void tegra114_periph_clk_init(void 
> __iomem *clk_base)

>       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tegra_periph_clk_list); i++) {
> +             struct tegra_clk_periph_regs *bank;
> +
>               data = &tegra_periph_clk_list[i];
> -             clk = tegra_clk_register_periph(data->name, data->parent_names,
> -                             data->num_parents, &data->periph,
> -                             clk_base, data->offset, data->flags);
> +             bank = get_reg_bank(data->periph.gate.clk_num);
> +
> +             if (!bank)
> +                     continue;

Nit: I dislike blank lines between the code that retrieves a value, and
the immediately following error-check of the value. This applies to the
second change to this function too.

> @@ -2337,6 +2257,9 @@ static void __init tegra114_clock_init(struct 
> device_node *np)
>       if (tegra114_osc_clk_init(clk_base) < 0)
>               return;
>  
> +     if (tegra_clk_periph_banks(5) < 0)
> +             return;

Is that just debugging code? If you intend to keep this as a permanent
run-time check, wouldn't it be better to validate the result of
get_reg_bank(max_tegra114_periph_clock_id)? But, I'm not sure the check
is necessary at all, since the result of get_reg_bank() is checked when
registering each individual clock, so there's already plenty of coverage.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to