Hi,
On 01/15/2015 10:31 PM, Akshay Saraswat wrote:
> Apparently, members of clk_bit_info array do not map correctly
> to the members of enum periph_id. This mapping got broken after
> we changed periph_id(s) to reflect interrupt number instead of
> their position in a sequence. This patch intends to fix above
> mentioned issue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Akshay Saraswat <aksha...@samsung.com>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
> - Removed exynos5_bit_info array name.
>
> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c | 81
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c
> b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c
> index b31c13b..519928c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c
> @@ -20,42 +20,49 @@
> * positions of the peripheral clocks of the src and div registers
> */
> struct clk_bit_info {
> + enum periph_id id;
> int8_t src_bit;
> int8_t div_bit;
> int8_t prediv_bit;
> };
>
> -/* src_bit div_bit prediv_bit */
> +/* periph_id src_bit div_bit prediv_bit */
> static struct clk_bit_info clk_bit_info[] = {
> - {0, 0, -1},
> - {4, 4, -1},
> - {8, 8, -1},
> - {12, 12, -1},
> - {0, 0, 8},
> - {4, 16, 24},
> - {8, 0, 8},
> - {12, 16, 24},
> - {-1, -1, -1},
> - {16, 0, 8},
> - {20, 16, 24},
> - {24, 0, 8},
> - {0, 0, 4},
> - {4, 12, 16},
> - {-1, -1, -1},
> - {-1, -1, -1},
> - {-1, 24, 0},
> - {-1, 24, 0},
> - {-1, 24, 0},
> - {-1, 24, 0},
> - {-1, 24, 0},
> - {-1, 24, 0},
> - {-1, 24, 0},
> - {-1, 24, 0},
> - {24, 0, -1},
> - {24, 0, -1},
> - {24, 0, -1},
> - {24, 0, -1},
> - {24, 0, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_UART0, 0, 0, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_UART1, 4, 4, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_UART2, 8, 8, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_UART3, 12, 12, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2C0, -1, 24, 0},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2C1, -1, 24, 0},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2C2, -1, 24, 0},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2C3, -1, 24, 0},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2C4, -1, 24, 0},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2C5, -1, 24, 0},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2C6, -1, 24, 0},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2C7, -1, 24, 0},
> + {PERIPH_ID_SPI0, 16, 0, 8},
> + {PERIPH_ID_SPI1, 20, 16, 24},
> + {PERIPH_ID_SPI2, 24, 0, 8},
> + {PERIPH_ID_SDMMC0, 0, 0, 8},
> + {PERIPH_ID_SDMMC1, 4, 16, 24},
> + {PERIPH_ID_SDMMC2, 8, 0, 8},
> + {PERIPH_ID_SDMMC3, 12, 16, 24},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2C8, -1, -1, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2C9, -1, -1, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2S0, 0, 0, 4},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2S1, 4, 12, 16},
> + {PERIPH_ID_SROMC, -1, -1, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_SPI3, 0, 0, 4},
> + {PERIPH_ID_SPI4, 4, 12, 16},
> + {PERIPH_ID_SDMMC4, 16, 0, 8},
> + {PERIPH_ID_PWM0, 24, 0, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_PWM1, 24, 0, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_PWM2, 24, 0, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_PWM3, 24, 0, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_PWM4, 24, 0, -1},
> + {PERIPH_ID_I2C10, -1, -1, -1},
> +
> + {PERIPH_ID_NONE, -1, -1, -1},
> };
>
> /* Epll Clock division values to achive different frequency output */
> @@ -260,9 +267,21 @@ static unsigned long exynos5_get_pll_clk(int pllreg)
> return fout;
> }
>
> +static struct clk_bit_info *get_clk_bit_info(int peripheral)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; clk_bit_info[i].id != PERIPH_ID_NONE; i++) {
> + if (clk_bit_info[i].id == peripheral)
> + break;
> + }
If don't match anything, it gets wrong bit_info.
I think good that print the warning message or other.
Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung
> +
> + return &clk_bit_info[i];
> +}
> +
> static unsigned long exynos5_get_periph_rate(int peripheral)
> {
> - struct clk_bit_info *bit_info = &clk_bit_info[peripheral];
> + struct clk_bit_info *bit_info = get_clk_bit_info(peripheral);
> unsigned long sclk, sub_clk;
> unsigned int src, div, sub_div;
> struct exynos5_clock *clk =
>
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
