[PATCH] ARM: tegra: Define Tegra20 CAR binding

[Olof Johansson]

Hi,

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com> wrote:
> Olof Johansson wrote at Wednesday, January 18, 2012 10:32 PM:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 05:16:52PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/nvidia,tegra20-car.txt
>> > +* NVIDIA Tegra20 Clock And Reset Controller
>> > +
>> > +This binding uses the common clock binding:
>> > +Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
>> > +
>> > +The CAR (Clock And Reset) Controller on Tegra is the HW module responsible
>> > +for muxing and gating Tegra's clocks, and setting their rates.
>> > +
>> > +Required properties :
>> > +- compatible : Should be "nvidia,<chip>-car"
>> > +- reg : Should contain CAR registers location and length
>> > +- clocks : Should contain phandle and clock specifiers for two clocks:
>> > +  the 32 KHz "32k_in", and the board-specific oscillator "osc".
>> > +- clock-names : Should contain a list of strings, with values "32k_in",
>> > +  and "osc".
>>
>> Hmm. I'd prefer to just ditch the notion of "clock-names" in the cases
>> where it isn't strictly necessary. Just because some vendors don't want
>> to define an order between their clocks doesn't mean it's a good idea
>> for everybody to use that model. In this case, just declaring that the
>> two clocks refs have to be to those two clocks in that order should
>> be sufficient.
>
> OK, that seems reasonable. I'm happy using of_clk_get() rather than
> of_clk_get_by_name(). I guess that means we should just avoid any
> discussion of clock-output-names too.

Sounds good to me. Let's make sure Grant is OK with it too though.

>> > +- #clock-cells : Should be 1.
>> > +  In clock consumers, this cell represents the clock ID exposed by the CAR.
>> > +  For a list of valid values, see the clock-output-names property.
>> > +
>> > +Optional properties :
>> > +- clock-output-names : Should contain a list of strings defining the clocks
>> > +  that the CAR provides. The list of names and clock IDs is below. The IDs
>> > +  may be used in clock specifiers. The names should be listed in this clock-
>> > +  output-names property, sorted in ID order, if this property is present.
>> > +
>> > +  The first 96 clocks are numbered to match the bits in the CAR's CLK_OUT_ENB
>> > +  registers. Later, subsequent IDs will be assigned to all other clocks the
>> > +  CAR controls.
>>
>> Aren't these names hardcoded per SoC? If so, they can be derived from the
>> compatible field + output number without having a table in the device tree.
>>
>> If anything, you might want to enumerate the allowed/expected values, but
>> actually putting them in a property seems overkill.
>
> Yes, the set of clocks is hard-coded per SoC, and the clock is uniquely
> identified by compatible+id.
>
> clock-output-names doesn't actually serve any functional purpose in
> Grant's common clock bindings patches; it's more of a documentation
> thing. As such, yes, I can remove the suggestion to actually put the
> table into the device tree, and rework the binding to simply define
> what the mapping is independently.

Again, sounds good to me.

>> > +Example:
>> > +
>> > +clocks {
>> > +   clk_32k: oscillator at 0 {
>>
>> If it has a unit addres (@<x>) it needs a reg property with the same base
>> address.
>
> I thought everything needed a unit address period? Is the rule more like
> the unit address is optional, but if present must match reg, so I can
> simply remove @0 and @1 here? I guess that makes a lot more sense.

Nope, you only need a unit address to make a node unique, i.e. if you
have more than one with the same name. It's not something that's been
followed very well on ARM dts files, I have even seen review comments
asking for explicit unit IDs when none are needed.

So you can't remove @0 and @1 here, since there are two oscillator subnodes.

I'm not 100% sure if you have to have the unit address represented as
"reg" or not, but it should probably be represented by _something_ in
the properties of the node. Mitch? Segher? :)


>> > +           compatible = "fixed-clock";
>> > +           #clock-cells = <0>;
>> > +           clock-frequency = <32768>;
>> > +   };
>> > +
>> > +   osc: oscillator at 1 {
>> > +           compatible = "fixed-clock";
>> > +           #clock-cells = <0>;
>> > +           clock-frequency = <12000000>;
>> > +   };
>> > +};


-Olof