lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 12/25] clk: bcm: rpi: Use CCF boundaries instead of rolling our own
From
Date
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 11:28 +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 08:02:22PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 17:45 +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > The raspberrypi firmware clock driver has a min_rate / max_rate clamping
> > > by
> > > storing the info it needs in a private structure.
> > >
> > > However, the CCF already provides such a facility, so we can switch to it
> > > to remove the boilerplate.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/clk/bcm/clk-raspberrypi.c | 18 ++++++++----------
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-raspberrypi.c b/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-
> > > raspberrypi.c
> > > index a20492fade6a..e135ad28d38d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-raspberrypi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-raspberrypi.c
> > > @@ -36,9 +36,6 @@ struct raspberrypi_clk {
> > > struct rpi_firmware *firmware;
> > > struct platform_device *cpufreq;
> > >
> > > - unsigned long min_rate;
> > > - unsigned long max_rate;
> > > -
> > > struct clk_hw pllb;
> > > };
> > >
> > > @@ -142,13 +139,11 @@ static int raspberrypi_fw_pll_set_rate(struct clk_hw
> > > *hw, unsigned long rate,
> > > static int raspberrypi_pll_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> > > struct clk_rate_request *req)
> > > {
> > > - struct raspberrypi_clk *rpi = container_of(hw, struct raspberrypi_clk,
> > > - pllb);
> > > u64 div, final_rate;
> > > u32 ndiv, fdiv;
> > >
> > > /* We can't use req->rate directly as it would overflow */
> > > - final_rate = clamp(req->rate, rpi->min_rate, rpi->max_rate);
> > > + final_rate = clamp(req->rate, req->min_rate, req->max_rate);
> > >
> > > div = (u64)final_rate << A2W_PLL_FRAC_BITS;
> > > do_div(div, req->best_parent_rate);
> > > @@ -215,12 +210,15 @@ static int raspberrypi_register_pllb(struct
> > > raspberrypi_clk *rpi)
> > > dev_info(rpi->dev, "CPU frequency range: min %u, max %u\n",
> > > min_rate, max_rate);
> > >
> > > - rpi->min_rate = min_rate * RPI_FIRMWARE_PLLB_ARM_DIV_RATE;
> > > - rpi->max_rate = max_rate * RPI_FIRMWARE_PLLB_ARM_DIV_RATE;
> > > -
> > > rpi->pllb.init = &init;
> > >
> > > - return devm_clk_hw_register(rpi->dev, &rpi->pllb);
> > > + ret = devm_clk_hw_register(rpi->dev, &rpi->pllb);
> > > + if (!ret)
> > > + clk_hw_set_rate_range(&rpi->pllb,
> > > + min_rate * RPI_FIRMWARE_PLLB_ARM_DIV_RATE,
> > > + max_rate *
> > > RPI_FIRMWARE_PLLB_ARM_DIV_RATE);
> >
> > Isn't there a potential race here? Albeit unlikely, cpufreq could show
> > up and call clk_round_rate() in between the registration and you
> > setting the ranges.
>
> IIRC, driver's probe are not called in parallel but in sequence, so we
> should be covered here.

Right, of course.

Reviewed-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>

Regards,
Nicolas

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-05 11:35    [W:0.049 / U:1.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site