Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 29 Aug 2015 05:55:57 +0200 | From | Maxime Ripard <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off |
| |
Hi Mike,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 02:50:51PM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote: > Quoting Maxime Ripard (2015-08-20 08:15:10) > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:43:56AM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote: > > > Quoting Maxime Ripard (2015-08-18 08:45:52) > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:09:27PM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote: > > > > > All of the other kitchen sink stuff (DT binding, passing the flag back > > > > > to the framework when the clock consumer driver calls clk_put) was left > > > > > out because I do not see a real use case for it. If one can demonstrate > > > > > a real use case (and not a hypothetical one) then this patch series can > > > > > be expanded further. > > > > > > > > I think there is a very trivial use case for passing back the > > > > reference to the framework, if during the probed, we have something > > > > like: > > > > > > > > clk = clk_get() > > > > clk_prepare_enable(clk) > > > > foo_framework_register() > > > > > > > > if foo_framework_register fails, the sensible thing to do would be to > > > > call clk_disable_unprepare. If the clock was a critical clock, you > > > > just gated it. > > > > > > Hmm, a good point. Creating the "pass the reference back" call is not > > > hard technically. But how to keep from abusing it? E.g. I do not want > > > that call to become an alternative to correct use of clk_enable. > > > > > > Maybe I'll need a Coccinelle script or just some regular sed to > > > occasionally search for new users of this api and audit them? > > > > > > I was hoping to not add any new consumer api at all :-/ > > > > I don't think there's any abuse that can be done with the current API, > > nor do I think you need to have new functions either. > > > > If the clock is critical, when the customer calls > > clk_unprepare_disable on it, simply take back the reference you gave > > in the framework, and you're done. Or am I missing something? > > Maybe I am the one missing something? My goal was to allow the consumer > driver to gate the critical clock. So we need clk_disable_unused to > actually disable the clock for that to work.
Yeah, but I guess the consumer driver clock gating is not the default mode of operations.
Under normal circumstances, it should just always leave the clock enabled, all the time.
> I think you are suggesting that clk_disable_unused should *not* disable > the clock if it is critical. Can you confirm that?
By default, yes.
Now, we also have the knowledgeable driver case wanting to force the clock gating. I think it's an orthogonal issue, we might have the same use case for non-critical clocks, and since it's hard to get that done with the current API, and that we don't really know what a knowledgeable driver will look like at this point, maybe we can just delay this entirely until we actually have one in front of us?
Maxime
-- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |