All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] clk: divider: fix rate calculation for fractional rates
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:32:53 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140128103253.GD15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52E76E3A.8030807@ti.com>

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:45:46AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> Russell, I'd like to understand why you think the original example is bad:
> 
> 	rate = clk_round_rate(clk, rate);
> 	clk_set_rate(clk, rate);

It's needlessly wasteful.  All the processing for setting the rate is
repeated.

> If the definition of clk_round_rate is basically "clk_set_rate without
> actually setting the rate", I agree that the above code is not good as
> it might not work correctly.
> 
> However, if  the following code you gave should work:
> 
> 	rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
> 	clk_set_rate(clk, rate);
> 	assert(clk_get_rate(clk) == rate);
> 
> then the original example should also always work, as it's almost the
> same as:
> 
> 	/* this is the "round" part */
> 	clk_set_rate(clk, rate);
> 	rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
> 
> 	clk_set_rate(clk, rate);
> 	assert(clk_get_rate(clk) == rate);

Okay, now ask yourself this - would you code the above into your driver
with no processing between the two?  It seems that some people would!

> Why I'm asking this is that for me (and probably for others also if
> you've seen it used in the kernel code) it feels natural to have code like:
> 
> 	rate = clk_round_rate(clk, rate);
> 	
> 	/* Verify the rounded rate here to see it's ok for the IP etc */
> 
> 	/* The rate is ok, so set it */
> 	clk_set_rate(clk, rate);

If you want to do something with the rounded rate, then that's fine,
you have a reason to do it this way.  However, what I was referring to
are drivers which literally do this:

	clk_set_rate(clk, clk_round_rate(clk, rate));

In other words, they think that they must always round the rate before
passing it into clk_set_rate() even though they make no other use of
the rounded rate.  That is completely wasteful and unnecessary.  It
might as well have clk_round_rate() replaced by a udelay() to waste
some CPU cycles just for the hell of it.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: 5.8Mbps down 500kbps up.  Estimation
in database were 13.1 to 19Mbit for a good line, about 7.5+ for a bad.
Estimate before purchase was "up to 13.2Mbit".

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
Cc: Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Kristo,
	Tero" <t-kristo@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: divider: fix rate calculation for fractional rates
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:32:53 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140128103253.GD15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52E76E3A.8030807@ti.com>

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:45:46AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> Russell, I'd like to understand why you think the original example is bad:
> 
> 	rate = clk_round_rate(clk, rate);
> 	clk_set_rate(clk, rate);

It's needlessly wasteful.  All the processing for setting the rate is
repeated.

> If the definition of clk_round_rate is basically "clk_set_rate without
> actually setting the rate", I agree that the above code is not good as
> it might not work correctly.
> 
> However, if  the following code you gave should work:
> 
> 	rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
> 	clk_set_rate(clk, rate);
> 	assert(clk_get_rate(clk) == rate);
> 
> then the original example should also always work, as it's almost the
> same as:
> 
> 	/* this is the "round" part */
> 	clk_set_rate(clk, rate);
> 	rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
> 
> 	clk_set_rate(clk, rate);
> 	assert(clk_get_rate(clk) == rate);

Okay, now ask yourself this - would you code the above into your driver
with no processing between the two?  It seems that some people would!

> Why I'm asking this is that for me (and probably for others also if
> you've seen it used in the kernel code) it feels natural to have code like:
> 
> 	rate = clk_round_rate(clk, rate);
> 	
> 	/* Verify the rounded rate here to see it's ok for the IP etc */
> 
> 	/* The rate is ok, so set it */
> 	clk_set_rate(clk, rate);

If you want to do something with the rounded rate, then that's fine,
you have a reason to do it this way.  However, what I was referring to
are drivers which literally do this:

	clk_set_rate(clk, clk_round_rate(clk, rate));

In other words, they think that they must always round the rate before
passing it into clk_set_rate() even though they make no other use of
the rounded rate.  That is completely wasteful and unnecessary.  It
might as well have clk_round_rate() replaced by a udelay() to waste
some CPU cycles just for the hell of it.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: 5.8Mbps down 500kbps up.  Estimation
in database were 13.1 to 19Mbit for a good line, about 7.5+ for a bad.
Estimate before purchase was "up to 13.2Mbit".

  reply	other threads:[~2014-01-28 10:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-11-06 11:06 [PATCH] clk: divider: fix rate calculation for fractional rates Tomi Valkeinen
2013-11-06 11:06 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2013-11-06 11:15 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-11-06 11:15   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-11-06 11:48   ` Tomi Valkeinen
2013-11-06 11:48     ` Tomi Valkeinen
2013-11-06 16:19     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-11-06 16:19       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-28  8:45       ` Tomi Valkeinen
2014-01-28  8:45         ` Tomi Valkeinen
2014-01-28 10:32         ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2014-01-28 10:32           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-28 10:40           ` Tomi Valkeinen
2014-01-28 10:40             ` Tomi Valkeinen
2014-02-11 14:18 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2014-02-11 14:18   ` Tomi Valkeinen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140128103253.GD15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
    --to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.