Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-79817-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240216223245.12273-1-semen.protsenko@linaro.org>
 <20240216223245.12273-12-semen.protsenko@linaro.org> <ce515530-428a-4a21-8c56-5a497cc8130a@linaro.org>
 <CAPLW+4=kpk=Vg=nX-hVxcCS0OttC6xmyUcB005tmX+vtUF9TLA@mail.gmail.com> <c4f7e3cb-db9b-48be-883e-33878d2510e8@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <c4f7e3cb-db9b-48be-883e-33878d2510e8@linaro.org>
From: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 13:57:35 -0600
Message-ID: <CAPLW+4kBHnLnPj0JKvdQ-Bm7DiEJ+_Ob-Cw60=vzwDwbOh4qOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] clk: samsung: Keep register offsets in chip
 specific structure
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>, 
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>, 
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 1:47=E2=80=AFAM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 22/02/2024 01:42, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 5:04=E2=80=AFAM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 16/02/2024 23:32, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> >>> Abstract CPU clock registers by keeping their offsets in a dedicated
> >>> chip specific structure to accommodate for oncoming Exynos850 support=
,
> >>> which has different offsets for cluster 0 and cluster 1. This rework
> >>> also makes it possible to use exynos_set_safe_div() for all chips, so
> >>> exynos5433_set_safe_div() is removed here to reduce the code
> >>> duplication.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So that's the answer why you could not use flags anymore - you need an
> >> enum, not a bitmap. Such short explanation should be in previous commi=
ts
> >> justifying moving reg layout to new property.
> >
> > Will do, thanks.
> >
> >>
> >>> No functional change.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/clk/samsung/clk-cpu.c | 156 +++++++++++++++++++-------------=
--
> >>>  1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-cpu.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-=
cpu.c
> >>> index 04394d2166c9..744b609c222d 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-cpu.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-cpu.c
> >>> @@ -44,12 +44,14 @@ typedef int (*exynos_rate_change_fn_t)(struct clk=
_notifier_data *ndata,
> >>>
> >>>  /**
> >>>   * struct exynos_cpuclk_chip - Chip specific data for CPU clock
> >>> + * @regs: register offsets for CPU related clocks
> >>>   * @pre_rate_cb: callback to run before CPU clock rate change
> >>>   * @post_rate_cb: callback to run after CPU clock rate change
> >>>   */
> >>>  struct exynos_cpuclk_chip {
> >>> -     exynos_rate_change_fn_t pre_rate_cb;
> >>> -     exynos_rate_change_fn_t post_rate_cb;
> >>> +     const void                              * const regs;
> >>
> >> Why this is void?
> >>
> >
> > Different chips can have very different register layout. For example,
> > older Exynos chips usually keep multiple CPU divider ratios in one
> > single register, whereas more modern chips have a dedicated register
> > for each divider clock. Also, old chips usually split divider ratio vs
> > DIV clock status between different registers, but in modern chips they
> > both live in one single register. Having (void *) makes it possible to
> > keep pointers to different structures, and each function for the
> > particular chip can "know" which exactly structure is stored there,
> > casting (void *) to a needed type. Another way to do that would be to
> > have "one-size-fits-all" structure with all possible registers for all
> > possible chips. I don't know, I just didn't like that for a couple of
> > reasons, so decided to go with (void *).
> >
> > I'll add some explanation in the commit message in v2.
>
> Currently the one-size-fits-all seems feasible, even if few fields are
> not matching, so I would prefer to go this approach.
>

Sure, no problem. Will fix it in v3.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>