[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] Tegra114: Add support for more clock sources for T114 periphs

[Tom Warren]

On Jan 21, 2014 5:27 PM, "Stephen Warren" <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/15/2013 04:54 PM, Tom Warren wrote:
> > Some T114 peripherals can take up to 8 different clock
> > sources (parents), including 4 new ones that don't exist
> > on previous chips (PLLC2/C3/MEM2/SRC2). Expand clock/pll
> > code/tables to support these additional bits/sources.
> >
> > Changes were made to some common code. Testing on T30/T20
> > showed no changes in periph clock sources/divisors.
> >
> > Also, peripheral clock sources that no longer exist on T114
> > were removed from the clock_periph_type table (CVE, TVDAC, etc.),
> > and periphs that are gone or not needed in early init are
> > no longer brought out of reset/enabled (FUSE, IRAMA/B/C/D, etc.).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren at nvidia.com>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - Fixed an assert test for a divisor value (s/b >0, not >=0)
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/tegra-common/clock.c
b/arch/arm/cpu/tegra-common/clock.c
>
> > @@ -332,7 +343,7 @@ unsigned clock_adjust_periph_pll_div(enum periph_id
periph_id,
> >       if (extra_div)
> >               *extra_div = xdiv;
> >
> > -     assert(divider >= 0);
> > +     assert(divider > 0);
> >       if (adjust_periph_pll(periph_id, source, mux_bits, divider))
> >               return -1U;
> >       debug("periph %d, rate=%d, reg=%p = %x\n", periph_id, rate,
>
> (For context, I'm working on applying the review feedback to this patch
> myself, so save Tom some time)
>
> I think that's the wrong assert to change.
>
> When I pointed out this issue in V1 of the patch, the problem was inside
> function clock_periph_enable(). However, that function isn't actually
> used anywhere, and was dropped from V2 of the patch.
>
> So, unless you tell me otherwise, I think I'll drop the change I quoted
> above from this patch, since it doesn't seem right.

Sounds good to me.