From: mturquette@linaro.org (Mike Turquette)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 3/7] clk: kona: don't init clocks at startup time
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 16:37:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140530233702.10062.60452@quantum> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1401483188-5395-4-git-send-email-elder@linaro.org>
Quoting Alex Elder (2014-05-30 13:53:04)
> +static int kona_clk_prepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
> {
> + struct kona_clk *bcm_clk = to_kona_clk(hw);
> + struct ccu_data *ccu = bcm_clk->ccu;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + flags = ccu_lock(ccu);
> + __ccu_write_enable(ccu);
> +
> switch (bcm_clk->type) {
> case bcm_clk_peri:
> - return __peri_clk_init(bcm_clk);
> + if (!__peri_clk_init(bcm_clk))
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + break;
> default:
> BUG();
> }
The switch-case only has one match, plus a default. Will there be others
in the future? Otherwise it can be replaced with an if-statement.
> - return -EINVAL;
> -}
> -
> -/* Set a CCU and all its clocks into their desired initial state */
> -bool __init kona_ccu_init(struct ccu_data *ccu)
> -{
> - unsigned long flags;
> - unsigned int which;
> - struct clk **clks = ccu->clk_data.clks;
> - bool success = true;
> -
> - flags = ccu_lock(ccu);
> - __ccu_write_enable(ccu);
> -
> - for (which = 0; which < ccu->clk_data.clk_num; which++) {
> - struct kona_clk *bcm_clk;
> -
> - if (!clks[which])
> - continue;
> - bcm_clk = to_kona_clk(__clk_get_hw(clks[which]));
> - success &= __kona_clk_init(bcm_clk);
> - }
>
> __ccu_write_disable(ccu);
> ccu_unlock(ccu, flags);
> - return success;
> +
> + return ret;
> }
Does this prepare callback "enable" a clock? E.g does a line NOT toggle
at a rate prior to this call, and then after this call completes that
same line is now toggling at a rate?
>
> -/* Clock operations */
> +static void kona_clk_unprepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
> +{
> + /* Nothing to do. */
> +}
Is doing nothing the right thing to do? Could power be saved somehow if
the .unprepare callback really gets called? Remember that if .unprepare
actually runs (because struct clk->prepare_count == 0) then the next
call to clk_prepare will actually call your .prepare callback and set up
the prereq clocks again. So the prereq clock initialization is no longer
a one-time thing, which might afford you some optimizations.
Regards,
Mike
>
> static int kona_peri_clk_enable(struct clk_hw *hw)
> {
> @@ -1264,6 +1258,8 @@ static int kona_peri_clk_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> }
>
> struct clk_ops kona_peri_clk_ops = {
> + .prepare = kona_clk_prepare,
> + .unprepare = kona_clk_unprepare,
> .enable = kona_peri_clk_enable,
> .disable = kona_peri_clk_disable,
> .is_enabled = kona_peri_clk_is_enabled,
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-kona.h b/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-kona.h
> index e9a8466..3409111 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-kona.h
> +++ b/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-kona.h
> @@ -511,6 +511,5 @@ extern u64 scaled_div_build(struct bcm_clk_div *div, u32 div_value,
> extern struct clk *kona_clk_setup(struct kona_clk *bcm_clk);
> extern void __init kona_dt_ccu_setup(struct ccu_data *ccu,
> struct device_node *node);
> -extern bool __init kona_ccu_init(struct ccu_data *ccu);
>
> #endif /* _CLK_KONA_H */
> --
> 1.9.1
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>
To: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>, mporter@linaro.org, bcm@fixthebug.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] clk: kona: don't init clocks at startup time
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 16:37:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140530233702.10062.60452@quantum> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1401483188-5395-4-git-send-email-elder@linaro.org>
Quoting Alex Elder (2014-05-30 13:53:04)
> +static int kona_clk_prepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
> {
> + struct kona_clk *bcm_clk = to_kona_clk(hw);
> + struct ccu_data *ccu = bcm_clk->ccu;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + flags = ccu_lock(ccu);
> + __ccu_write_enable(ccu);
> +
> switch (bcm_clk->type) {
> case bcm_clk_peri:
> - return __peri_clk_init(bcm_clk);
> + if (!__peri_clk_init(bcm_clk))
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + break;
> default:
> BUG();
> }
The switch-case only has one match, plus a default. Will there be others
in the future? Otherwise it can be replaced with an if-statement.
> - return -EINVAL;
> -}
> -
> -/* Set a CCU and all its clocks into their desired initial state */
> -bool __init kona_ccu_init(struct ccu_data *ccu)
> -{
> - unsigned long flags;
> - unsigned int which;
> - struct clk **clks = ccu->clk_data.clks;
> - bool success = true;
> -
> - flags = ccu_lock(ccu);
> - __ccu_write_enable(ccu);
> -
> - for (which = 0; which < ccu->clk_data.clk_num; which++) {
> - struct kona_clk *bcm_clk;
> -
> - if (!clks[which])
> - continue;
> - bcm_clk = to_kona_clk(__clk_get_hw(clks[which]));
> - success &= __kona_clk_init(bcm_clk);
> - }
>
> __ccu_write_disable(ccu);
> ccu_unlock(ccu, flags);
> - return success;
> +
> + return ret;
> }
Does this prepare callback "enable" a clock? E.g does a line NOT toggle
at a rate prior to this call, and then after this call completes that
same line is now toggling at a rate?
>
> -/* Clock operations */
> +static void kona_clk_unprepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
> +{
> + /* Nothing to do. */
> +}
Is doing nothing the right thing to do? Could power be saved somehow if
the .unprepare callback really gets called? Remember that if .unprepare
actually runs (because struct clk->prepare_count == 0) then the next
call to clk_prepare will actually call your .prepare callback and set up
the prereq clocks again. So the prereq clock initialization is no longer
a one-time thing, which might afford you some optimizations.
Regards,
Mike
>
> static int kona_peri_clk_enable(struct clk_hw *hw)
> {
> @@ -1264,6 +1258,8 @@ static int kona_peri_clk_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> }
>
> struct clk_ops kona_peri_clk_ops = {
> + .prepare = kona_clk_prepare,
> + .unprepare = kona_clk_unprepare,
> .enable = kona_peri_clk_enable,
> .disable = kona_peri_clk_disable,
> .is_enabled = kona_peri_clk_is_enabled,
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-kona.h b/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-kona.h
> index e9a8466..3409111 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-kona.h
> +++ b/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-kona.h
> @@ -511,6 +511,5 @@ extern u64 scaled_div_build(struct bcm_clk_div *div, u32 div_value,
> extern struct clk *kona_clk_setup(struct kona_clk *bcm_clk);
> extern void __init kona_dt_ccu_setup(struct ccu_data *ccu,
> struct device_node *node);
> -extern bool __init kona_ccu_init(struct ccu_data *ccu);
>
> #endif /* _CLK_KONA_H */
> --
> 1.9.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-30 23:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-30 20:53 [PATCH v4 0/7] clk: bcm: prerequisite and bus clock support Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` [PATCH v4 1/7] clk: kona: allow nested ccu_write_enable() requests Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` Alex Elder
2014-05-30 23:28 ` Mike Turquette
2014-05-30 23:28 ` Mike Turquette
2014-05-31 3:46 ` Alex Elder
2014-05-31 3:46 ` Alex Elder
2014-06-02 21:05 ` Mike Turquette
2014-06-02 21:05 ` Mike Turquette
2014-05-30 20:53 ` [PATCH v4 2/7] clk: kona: move some code Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` [PATCH v4 3/7] clk: kona: don't init clocks at startup time Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` Alex Elder
2014-05-30 23:37 ` Mike Turquette [this message]
2014-05-30 23:37 ` Mike Turquette
2014-05-31 3:47 ` Alex Elder
2014-05-31 3:47 ` Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` [PATCH v4 4/7] clk: bcm281xx: implement prerequisite clocks Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` [PATCH v4 5/7] clk: bcm281xx: add bus clock support Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` [PATCH v4 6/7] clk: bcm281xx: define a bus clock Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` [PATCH v4 7/7] ARM: dts: add bus clock bsc3_apb for bcm281xx Alex Elder
2014-05-30 20:53 ` Alex Elder
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=20140530233702.10062.60452@quantum \
--to=mturquette@linaro.org \
--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.