[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] v2 i.MX28: Fix ref_cpu clock setup

[Marek Vasut]

> Hi Marek,
> 
> > -     if (io == MXC_IOCLK0) {
> > -             writel(CLKCTRL_FRAC0_CLKGATEIO0,
> > -                     &clkctrl_regs->hw_clkctrl_frac0_set);
> > -             clrsetbits_le32(&clkctrl_regs->hw_clkctrl_frac0,
> > -                             CLKCTRL_FRAC0_IO0FRAC_MASK,
> > -                             div << CLKCTRL_FRAC0_IO0FRAC_OFFSET);
> > -             writel(CLKCTRL_FRAC0_CLKGATEIO0,
> > -                     &clkctrl_regs->hw_clkctrl_frac0_clr);
> > -     } else {
> > -             writel(CLKCTRL_FRAC0_CLKGATEIO1,
> > -                     &clkctrl_regs->hw_clkctrl_frac0_set);
> > -             clrsetbits_le32(&clkctrl_regs->hw_clkctrl_frac0,
> > -                             CLKCTRL_FRAC0_IO1FRAC_MASK,
> > -                             div << CLKCTRL_FRAC0_IO1FRAC_OFFSET);
> > -             writel(CLKCTRL_FRAC0_CLKGATEIO1,
> > -                     &clkctrl_regs->hw_clkctrl_frac0_clr);
> > -     }
> > 
> > I think you're mixing two things together above. This patch and some kind
> > of a cleanup. But ok, thinking of this, it seems context related.
> 
> Yeah, duplicate code didn't feel right. Besides, the code didn't check for
> values larger than MXC_IOCLK0, which is does now.
> 
> > > +     io_reg = CLKCTRL_FRAC0_IO0 - (io - MXC_IOCLK0);
> > 
> > Uh ... ioreg = (io == MXC_IOCLK0) ? something : another; or stuff like
> > that might be better. The math above is really confusing. Or you can
> > even enumerate enum mxs_ioclock so that you won't need this math at all,
> > which is even better.
> 
> I came accross an enumerator in the code, but I found that too big of a
> change to slip in, because it alters the external interface. But we're not
> done with the code yet. Plenty of oppertunities left.

Not really, fixing the enumeration should be fine I believe.
> 
> ioreg = (io == MXC_IOCLK0) is not the same. The actual value of
> io != MXC_IOCLK0 it compiler implementation depending.

That's why I put the ternary operator there ?
> 
> > Can you actually separate out the rename to register_32 and then the
> > fixup patch for register_8?
> 
> I'd rather not: I'm down to my neck it work and I don't these two parts in
> my archive so that means manual merging, verifying and for another two
> hours.

It's impossible to review like this though and much more prone to pull in bugs.
> 
> > Rest seems ok
> 
> Can you see if our server swapped tabs for spaces? It's beyond my grasp how
> M$ considers it a good idea to alter to contents of my email.

It didnt.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>         Robert.