Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 0/3] clk: detect per-user enable imbalances and implement hand-off

[Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2957 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]