Re: [PATCH 4/5] clk: qcom: camcc-sm8650: Add camera clock controller driver for SM8650

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 at 15:09, Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/7/2024 6:41 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> > On 06/02/2024 11:31, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
> >> Add support for the camera clock controller for camera clients to be
> >> able to request for camcc clocks on SM8650 platform.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >> +static struct clk_rcg2 cam_cc_mclk1_clk_src = {
> >> +    .cmd_rcgr = 0x1501c,
> >> +    .mnd_width = 8,
> >> +    .hid_width = 5,
> >> +    .parent_map = cam_cc_parent_map_1,
> >> +    .freq_tbl = ftbl_cam_cc_mclk0_clk_src,
> >> +    .clkr.hw.init = &(const struct clk_init_data) {
> >> +        .name = "cam_cc_mclk1_clk_src",
> >> +        .parent_data = cam_cc_parent_data_1,
> >> +        .num_parents = ARRAY_SIZE(cam_cc_parent_data_1),
> >> +        .flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
> >> +        .ops = &clk_rcg2_shared_ops,
> >
> > Nice.
> >
> > I compared this to WIP for x1e80100 which looks nearly register
> > compatible. Use of the shared_ops indicates to me you've thought about
> > which clocks should not be switched all the way off.
> >
>
> Thanks Bryan for your review, We want all RCG's to be parked at safe
> config(XO) when they are disabled, hence using shared ops for all the
> RCG's.

What is the reason for parking it instead of fully disabling the clock?

>
>
> >> +static struct platform_driver cam_cc_sm8650_driver = {
> >> +    .probe = cam_cc_sm8650_probe,
> >> +    .driver = {
> >> +        .name = "cam_cc-sm8650",
> >
> > That said .. please fix the name here "cam_cc-sm8650". The title of your
> > series is "camcc-sm8650" which IMO is a much more appropriate name.
> >
> > The admixture of hyphen "-" and underscore "_" is some kind of
> > tokenisation sin.
> >
>
> Sure, will fix this in next series.
>
> Thanks,
> Jagadeesh
>
> > Reviewed-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx>
>


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry