[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: of_clk_add_(hw_)providers multipule times for one node?
Hi Stephen,

2016-08-09 8:37 GMT+09:00 Stephen Boyd <>:
> On 08/08, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>> 2016-08-05 6:25 GMT+09:00 Stephen Boyd <>:
>> > +Rob in case he has any insight
>> >
>> > On 07/09, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> >> Hi.
>> >>
>> >> I think the current code allows to add
>> >> clk_providers multiple times against one DT node.
>> >>
>> >> Are there cases that really need to do so?
>> >
>> > If we have clk drivers that have a device driver structure and
>> > also use CLK_OF_DECLARE then we could get into a situation where
>> > they register two providers for the same device node. I can't
>> > think of any other situation where this would happen though.
>> What is the benefit for splitting one clock device
>> into CLK_OF_DECLARE() and a platform_driver?
>> If we go this way, I think we need to fix the current code.
> Sure. Do we have anyone registering two providers for the same
> node? I'm trying to weigh the urgency of this.
>> of_clk_add_provider() calls of_clk_del_provider()
>> in its failure path.
>> Notice of_clk_del_provider() unregister
>> all the providers associated with the device node.
> Where is that? I see a break statement in the while loop after
> the first matching np is found.

Ah, I missed the "break".

So, this works *almost* well.

I mean *almost* because the of_clk_mutex is released
between of_clk_add_hw_provider() and of_clk_del_provider().

What if two providers are added concurrently.
I know it never happens in use-cases we assume, though.

>> So, if of_clk_add_provider() fails to register a platform driver,
>> it may unregister another provider added by OF_CLK_DECLARE().
> I suppose if we loop over the list in the incorrect order we
> would unregister the wrong one.


Here, the last added will be first deleted.

>> Some platform drivers call of_clk_del_provider() in a .remove callback,
>> so the same problem could happen.
>> Why does of_clk_del_provider() take (struct device_node *np) ?
>> Shouldn't it take (struct of_clk_provider *cp)?
> Not sure. Probably someone thought they could hide the structure
> from consumers and just return success or failure.

consumers? or did you mean providers?
I think consumers have no chance to call of_clk_del_provider().

> We could make
> it an opaque pointer though and properly cleanup without
> iterating the list. Maybe we should do that for the hw provider
> API so that it simplifies the search.
>> > It used to return the last provider's error, but I accidentally
>> > changed that behavior when adding clk_hw providers in commit
>> > 0861e5b8cf80 (clk: Add clk_hw OF clk providers, 2016-02-05).
>> > Nobody seems to have complained though, so you're the first to
>> > have reported this.
>> If we allow multiple OF-providers for one device node,
>> I think any error should be treated as EPROBE_DEFER,
>> i.e. the current code is good.
>> The scenario is:
>> - Clocks with ID 0 thru 3 are provided by CLK_OF_DECLARE()
>> - Clocks with ID 4 thru 9 are provided by a platform driver.
>> What if a clock consumer requests the clk ID 5
>> after CLK_OF_DECLARE(), but before the clk platform driver is registered?
>> If the clock consumer gets the last provider's error
>> (-EINVAL returned from CLK_OR_DECLARE one in this case)
>> it will lose a chance to retry it after clocks from a platform driver
>> are registered.
>> A bit nasty...
> Yes, but right now if we get an error from a provider and that's
> the only provider in the list we don't return the error. Also,
> this case should be fixed by having the first provider return
> EPROBE_DEFER for clks that aren't populated early on.

OK. I like this idea.

> The best we can do is have the framework only return probe defer
> if there isn't a provider registered. Once a provider is
> registered, it needs to do the right thing and return the
> appropriate error (invalid or probe defer for example) at the
> right time.


Lastly, we have two solutions so far. Which do you think is better?

One solution is, as others suggested,
CLK_OF_DECLARE() can allocate a bigger array than it needs,
so that blank entries can be filled by a platfrom_driver later.

The other way is,
CLK_OF_DECLARE() and a platfrom_driver
allocate separate of_clk_provider for each of them.

Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-08-11 00:01    [W:0.075 / U:4.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site