Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1759203AbaLKW0e (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:26:34 -0500
Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:33189 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1759182AbaLKW0c convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:26:32 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
To: Raymond Tan <raymond.tan@intel.com>, "Lee Jones" <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        "Samuel Ortiz" <sameo@linux.intel.com>
From: Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <1418290710-5871-2-git-send-email-raymond.tan@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Alvin Chen" <alvin.chen@intel.com>,
        "Andriy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>,
        "Raymond Tan" <raymond.tan@intel.com>
References: <1418290710-5871-1-git-send-email-raymond.tan@intel.com>
 <1418290710-5871-2-git-send-email-raymond.tan@intel.com>
Message-ID: <20141211222627.20398.48669@quantum>
User-Agent: alot/0.3.5
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] mfd: intel_quark_i2c_gpio: Add Intel Quark X1000 I2C-GPIO
 MFD Driver
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:26:27 -0800
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Quoting Raymond Tan (2014-12-11 01:38:30)
> In Quark X1000, there's a single PCI device that provides both
> an I2C controller and a GPIO controller. This MFD driver will
> split the 2 devices for their respective drivers.
> 
> This patch is based on Josef Ahmad's initial work for Quark enabling.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Weike Chen <alvin.chen@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Raymond Tan <raymond.tan@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/Kconfig                |   12 ++
>  drivers/mfd/Makefile               |    1 +
>  drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c |  279 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 292 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c

<snip>

> +static int intel_quark_register_i2c_clk(struct intel_quark_mfd *quark_mfd)
> +{
> +       struct pci_dev *pdev = quark_mfd->pdev;
> +       struct clk_lookup *i2c_clk_lookup;
> +       struct clk *i2c_clk;
> +       int retval;
> +
> +       i2c_clk_lookup = devm_kcalloc(
> +               &pdev->dev, INTEL_QUARK_I2C_NCLK,
> +               sizeof(*i2c_clk_lookup), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> +       if (!i2c_clk_lookup)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +       i2c_clk_lookup[0].dev_id = INTEL_QUARK_I2C_CONTROLLER_CLK;
> +
> +       i2c_clk = clk_register_fixed_rate(
> +               &pdev->dev, INTEL_QUARK_I2C_CONTROLLER_CLK, NULL,
> +               CLK_IS_ROOT, INTEL_QUARK_I2C_CLK_HZ);
> +
> +       quark_mfd->i2c_clk_lookup = i2c_clk_lookup;
> +       quark_mfd->i2c_clk = i2c_clk;
> +
> +       retval = clk_register_clkdevs(i2c_clk, i2c_clk_lookup,
> +                                     INTEL_QUARK_I2C_NCLK);

Lee asked about this in V2, so I'll follow up here in V3. It is OK for a
driver to use the clock provider api to register clocks with the clk
framework if that device truly is the provider of that clock signal. A
good example can be found here:

drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c

The OMAP3 ISP receives a clock signal as a input. Within the image
signal processor IP block it also has some basic clock controls of it's
own which it feeds to downstream IP blocks. As such it is both a clock
consumer and a provider and this is a common pattern amongst SoC
designs.

So my question for this driver is if i2c_clk is provided by whatever
the hell this mfd device is supposed to be, or if it's just a convenient
place to call the code?

Another concern is that fact that this is a fixed clock. For
architectures that use device tree to desribe board topology (ARM, MIPS,
PPC) it is common to simply put the fixed-rate clocks there and not
directly into the drive code. This prevents having to hack a lot of
conditionals into your driver when rev 2.0 of your hardware comes out
with a faster fixed rate clock, but you still need to support 1.0
hardware users at the slower rate. I don't know if x86 has a similar way
of describing board topology but it might something to look into.

Regards,
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/