On 09/08/2016 08:46 PM, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Wood >> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 6:05 AM >> To: Prabhakar Kushwaha <[email protected]>; york sun >> <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch: ifc: update the IFC IP input clock >> >> On 09/08/2016 07:05 PM, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: york sun >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 9:22 PM >>>> To: Prabhakar Kushwaha <[email protected]>; u- >>>> [email protected]; Scott Wood <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch: ifc: update the IFC IP input clock >>>> >>>> On 09/08/2016 02:33 AM, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>>> So better to print IP clock to avoid any confusion. >>>>>>> IFC output clock will be printed when it is actually being used during >>>>>> synchronous NOR, syn NAND. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not against changing it to internal clock. But what are you going >>>>>> to print on the console? I think it is confusing to say IFC or local bus >>>>>> internal clock speed. Please also check how this clock is used and make >>>>>> sure arch.lbc_clk is still correct, after passing to Linux. >>>>>> >>>>> arch.lbc_clk is only being used for eLBC for device tree fixup. >>>>> And I checked the Linux eLBC driver. Looks like it is not using used. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If this clock is not used, can we drop it completely? >>>> >>> >>> From my point of view Yes. >>> >>> Scott, Please advice >> >> Well, there is that patch from Matt Weber that is trying to guess the >> IFC frequency in order to use NWAIT... Not sure if we'll end up >> actually using NWAIT > (Prabhakar, can you answer my question of whether >> there is a better opcode to use with RNDOUT?) or ever sending a real >> RNDOUT, or if we'll ever care about these newer NAND chips on eLBC, but >> if U-Boot is currently writing the clock frequency into the device tree >> I don't see why we'd rip it out. >> > > IFC frequency means IP clock or IP output clock?
External bus clock. Which is currently being written to the device tree? > If IP clock then other patch for eLBC still valid. What other patch? > > For IFC: Code needs to be added for device tree fixup for PowerPC, ARM SoC. > It is missing for now :( No, we don't want to introduce new clock-frequency fixups. If we need this on IFC we should add a clocks property. But if we already have clock-frequency on eLBC then no reason not to use that if needed. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
