Hi,
On 14 August 2015 at 16:51, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 08/14/2015 04:40 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> On 14 August 2015 at 10:58, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/14/2015 10:50 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Bin,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14 August 2015 at 03:18, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently there are 5 dm serial drivers, all of which are ns16550
>>>>>> compatible drivers. They are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> serial_omap.c
>>>>>> serial_dw.c
>>>>>> serial_tegra.c
>>>>>> serial_x86.c
>>>>>> serial_ppc.c
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All these drivers are pretty much similar. I think we can justmerge
>>>>>> these into one ns16550 driver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think this is necessary, I will send a patch series to do this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The tegra one is there because it needs an input clock and Stephen
>>>>> didn't want to add this to the device tree binding (the kernel has a
>>>>> clock framework which gets around this problem).
>>>>>
>>>>> After that I followed the same pattern. I would support updating the
>>>>> binding to support an input clock. Even with the new clock framework
>>>>> in U-Boot it might be painful to fit it into SPL in some cases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The clock is already in the DT, in both Linux and U-Boot's copy, at
>>>> least
>>>> for Tegra DTs:
>>>>
>>>> uarta: serial@0,70006000 {
>>>> compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-uart", ...
>>>> ...
>>>> clocks = <&tegra_car TEGRA124_CLK_UARTA>;
>>>>
>>>
>>> I mean the clock-frequency property. However if there is a plan to
>>> implement the clock framework in U-Boot that would be good too.
>>>
>>
>> The clock-frequency is a fixed value on x86 super i/o chipset, and
>> fixed on the PCI bus too. But for ARM and PPC, it might get
>> dynamically calculated due to different PLL settings. We can implement
>> a _weak function like the one in serial_ppc.c get_serial_clock() to
>> initialize plat->clock with its return value. The _weak function gets
>> clock-frequency from device tree. If there is not, platform codes
>> which uses the ns16550 driver should provide the implementation of
>> get_serial_clock(). Thoughts?
>
>
> There is no clock-frequency property in DT, at least for the Tegra DT
> binding. It looks like some other bindings have it. To obtain the clock
> frequency from DT for Tegra, you'd need to parse the clocks property, find
> the clock driver associated with the phandle in DT, and go and ask that
> clock driver what the clock frequency is.
>
> I'd prefer not to have a weak function that parses clock-frequency, since
> it's too easy to accidentally use it on systems where parsing that property
> is incorrect.
>
> Certainly, a generic UART driver can call out to a platform-supplied
> function to retrieve the clock, and we can provide driver-specific
> implementations for x86 super IO and PCI, and generic implementations that
> appropriate drivers can call to parse the clocks or clock-frequency property
> from DT, and finally for Tegra if we can't parse the clocks property right
> now, call the Tegra clock driver directly to look up the value.
I'm not a big fan of weak functions either. In fact I think with
driver model we should avoid them. If we can't call a uclass to get
the info then perhaps we should wait until we can.
Pragmatically I wonder if a UART clock frequency would not be a useful
compromise? Some bindings have it, some do not. Maybe we should just
add it?
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
