Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1215674
| From | Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off |
| Date | 2015-08-29 05:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q2Fjr-6Q1-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <pYRjb-293-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <pZzNg-fs-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <pZzNg-fs-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <q1CQG-6AJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <q1CQG-6AJ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 07:54:23AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, 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. > > > > I think you are suggesting that clk_disable_unused should *not* disable > > the clock if it is critical. Can you confirm that? > > My take is that a critical clock should only be disabled when a > knowledgeable driver wants to gate it for a specific purpose [probably > using clk_disable()]. Once the aforementioned driver no longer has a > use for the clock [whether that happens with clk_unprepare_disable() > or clk_put() ...] the clock should be ungated and be provided with > critical status once more. Agreed. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> - 2015-08-20 17:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-08-26 09:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@st.com> - 2015-08-26 10:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-08-26 11:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@st.com> - 2015-08-26 11:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2015-08-26 22:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> - 2015-08-29 05:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> - 2015-08-29 06:00 +0200
csiph-web