[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 19/58] clk: sunxi: Implement direct MMC clocks

[Jagan Teki]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard at bootlin.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 03:34:20PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk_a10.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk_a10.c
>> >> index fb11231dd1..55176bc174 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk_a10.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk_a10.c
>> >> @@ -23,6 +23,11 @@ static struct ccu_clk_map a10_clks[] = {
>> >>       [CLK_AHB_MMC2]          = { 0x060, BIT(10), NULL },
>> >>       [CLK_AHB_MMC3]          = { 0x060, BIT(11), NULL },
>> >>
>> >> +     [CLK_MMC0]              = { 0x088, BIT(31), &mmc_clk_set_rate },
>> >> +     [CLK_MMC1]              = { 0x08c, BIT(31), &mmc_clk_set_rate },
>> >> +     [CLK_MMC2]              = { 0x090, BIT(31), &mmc_clk_set_rate },
>> >> +     [CLK_MMC3]              = { 0x094, BIT(31), &mmc_clk_set_rate },
>> >> +
>> >>       [CLK_USB_OHCI0]         = { 0x0cc, BIT(6), NULL },
>> >>       [CLK_USB_OHCI1]         = { 0x0cc, BIT(7), NULL },
>> >>       [CLK_USB_PHY]           = { 0x0cc, BIT(8), NULL },
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk_a10s.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk_a10s.c
>> >> index bc4ae7352b..fbac0ad751 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk_a10s.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk_a10s.c
>> >> @@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ static struct ccu_clk_map a10s_clks[] = {
>> >>       [CLK_AHB_MMC1]          = { 0x060, BIT(9), NULL },
>> >>       [CLK_AHB_MMC2]          = { 0x060, BIT(10), NULL },
>> >>
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMC
>> >> +     [CLK_MMC0]              = { 0x088, BIT(31), &mmc_clk_set_rate },
>> >> +     [CLK_MMC1]              = { 0x08c, BIT(31), &mmc_clk_set_rate },
>> >> +     [CLK_MMC2]              = { 0x090, BIT(31), &mmc_clk_set_rate },
>> >> +#endif
>> >> +
>> >
>> > I'm not too sure about the ifdef here. Or at least, we should be
>> > consistent, and if we do it for the MMC, we should do it for all the
>> > SoCs (including the A10), and for all the controllers (including USB,
>> > for example).
>>
>> because few of sun5i boards not using MMC, example CHIP and CHIP_pro
>> otherwise we need to use intermediate wrapper to call
>> mmc_clk_set_rate.
>
> Well, yes, but you can make the same argument for other SoCs, and
> other features. So really, I think this is a good idea, but if we
> remain consistent between SoCs and features.

True, I see adding wrapper make consistent on these descriptor table,
so the wrapper will call the actual set_rate, of course we need to add
ifdef in wrapper for non-MMC targets or __weak function.