From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
To: "Emilio López" <emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk>
Cc: mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@codeaurora.org, wens@csie.org,
heiko@sntech.de, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] clk: sunxi: delay protected clocks until arch initcall
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 20:32:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160201193232.GG4652@lukather> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56A91245.3090706@collabora.co.uk>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4045 bytes --]
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:53:57PM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> El 27/01/16 a las 12:37, Maxime Ripard escribió:
> >Hi Emilio,
> >
> >On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:10:38AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
> >>Clocks are registered early on, and unused clocks get disabled on
> >>late initcall, so we can delay protecting important clocks a bit.
> >>If we do this too early, it may happen that some clocks are orphans
> >>and therefore enabling them may not work as intended. If we do this
> >>too late, a driver may reparent some clock and cause another important
> >>clock to be disabled as a byproduct.
> >>
> >>arch_initcall should be a good spot to do this, as clock drivers using
> >>the OF mechanisms will be all registered by then, and drivers won't
> >>have started probing yet.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Emilio López <emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk>
> >>---
> >> drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sunxi.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
> >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sunxi.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sunxi.c
> >>index 5ba2188..285e8ee 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sunxi.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sunxi.c
> >>@@ -1153,10 +1153,12 @@ static void __init of_sunxi_table_clock_setup(const struct of_device_id *clk_mat
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >>+/* By default, don't protect any clocks */
> >>+static const char **protected_clocks __initdata;
> >>+static int protected_clocks_nr __initdata;
> >>+
> >> static void __init sunxi_init_clocks(const char *clocks[], int nclocks)
> >> {
> >>- unsigned int i;
> >>-
> >> /* Register divided output clocks */
> >> of_sunxi_table_clock_setup(clk_divs_match, sunxi_divs_clk_setup);
> >>
> >>@@ -1169,14 +1171,26 @@ static void __init sunxi_init_clocks(const char *clocks[], int nclocks)
> >> /* Register mux clocks */
> >> of_sunxi_table_clock_setup(clk_mux_match, sunxi_mux_clk_setup);
> >>
> >>+ /* We shall protect these clocks when everything is ready */
> >>+ protected_clocks = clocks;
> >>+ protected_clocks_nr = nclocks;
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+static int __init sunxi_init_clock_protection(void)
> >>+{
> >>+ unsigned int i;
> >>+
> >> /* Protect the clocks that needs to stay on */
> >>- for (i = 0; i < nclocks; i++) {
> >>- struct clk *clk = clk_get(NULL, clocks[i]);
> >>+ for (i = 0; i < protected_clocks_nr; i++) {
> >>+ struct clk *clk = clk_get(NULL, protected_clocks[i]);
> >>
> >> if (!IS_ERR(clk))
> >> clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> >> }
> >>+
> >>+ return 0;
> >> }
> >>+arch_initcall(sunxi_init_clock_protection);
> >
> >You also need to filter that by the machine compatible in case you're
> >running it on a !sunxi SoC.
>
> protected_clocks_nr will be 0 on a !sunxi machine, so this is effectively a
> noop there.
Ah, yes, good point.
> >Overall, I'm a bit skeptical about the approach. It doesn't really fix
> >everything, just hides it behind a curtain, and I'm pretty sure the
> >clocks not registered by this code would still be broken (the mod0
> >clocks for example).
>
> This is only meant to solve the problems observed when trying to grab
> critical clocks before letting all the basic/OF clock types register. The
> actual clock trees are complete once all the built-in clock compatibles are
> probed, so this just pushes the protection after that point in time. The
> plan on the long term should be to use the CCF-built-in clock protection,
> once it's finished and merged, but it's not here yet.
>
> Regarding your example, I'm not aware of any critical mod0 clocks (not that
> it should matter, as they won't be orphans either).
My bad, the A13 mbus clock is one. The A23 is one too.
Both of these are probed through CLK_OF_DECLARE, and use directly
clk_prepare_enable on the clock given back by clk_register, which
won't work in your case.
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 --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] clk: sunxi: delay protected clocks until arch initcall
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 20:32:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160201193232.GG4652@lukather> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56A91245.3090706@collabora.co.uk>
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:53:57PM -0300, Emilio L?pez wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> El 27/01/16 a las 12:37, Maxime Ripard escribi?:
> >Hi Emilio,
> >
> >On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:10:38AM -0300, Emilio L?pez wrote:
> >>Clocks are registered early on, and unused clocks get disabled on
> >>late initcall, so we can delay protecting important clocks a bit.
> >>If we do this too early, it may happen that some clocks are orphans
> >>and therefore enabling them may not work as intended. If we do this
> >>too late, a driver may reparent some clock and cause another important
> >>clock to be disabled as a byproduct.
> >>
> >>arch_initcall should be a good spot to do this, as clock drivers using
> >>the OF mechanisms will be all registered by then, and drivers won't
> >>have started probing yet.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Emilio L?pez <emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk>
> >>---
> >> drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sunxi.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
> >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sunxi.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sunxi.c
> >>index 5ba2188..285e8ee 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sunxi.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sunxi.c
> >>@@ -1153,10 +1153,12 @@ static void __init of_sunxi_table_clock_setup(const struct of_device_id *clk_mat
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >>+/* By default, don't protect any clocks */
> >>+static const char **protected_clocks __initdata;
> >>+static int protected_clocks_nr __initdata;
> >>+
> >> static void __init sunxi_init_clocks(const char *clocks[], int nclocks)
> >> {
> >>- unsigned int i;
> >>-
> >> /* Register divided output clocks */
> >> of_sunxi_table_clock_setup(clk_divs_match, sunxi_divs_clk_setup);
> >>
> >>@@ -1169,14 +1171,26 @@ static void __init sunxi_init_clocks(const char *clocks[], int nclocks)
> >> /* Register mux clocks */
> >> of_sunxi_table_clock_setup(clk_mux_match, sunxi_mux_clk_setup);
> >>
> >>+ /* We shall protect these clocks when everything is ready */
> >>+ protected_clocks = clocks;
> >>+ protected_clocks_nr = nclocks;
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+static int __init sunxi_init_clock_protection(void)
> >>+{
> >>+ unsigned int i;
> >>+
> >> /* Protect the clocks that needs to stay on */
> >>- for (i = 0; i < nclocks; i++) {
> >>- struct clk *clk = clk_get(NULL, clocks[i]);
> >>+ for (i = 0; i < protected_clocks_nr; i++) {
> >>+ struct clk *clk = clk_get(NULL, protected_clocks[i]);
> >>
> >> if (!IS_ERR(clk))
> >> clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> >> }
> >>+
> >>+ return 0;
> >> }
> >>+arch_initcall(sunxi_init_clock_protection);
> >
> >You also need to filter that by the machine compatible in case you're
> >running it on a !sunxi SoC.
>
> protected_clocks_nr will be 0 on a !sunxi machine, so this is effectively a
> noop there.
Ah, yes, good point.
> >Overall, I'm a bit skeptical about the approach. It doesn't really fix
> >everything, just hides it behind a curtain, and I'm pretty sure the
> >clocks not registered by this code would still be broken (the mod0
> >clocks for example).
>
> This is only meant to solve the problems observed when trying to grab
> critical clocks before letting all the basic/OF clock types register. The
> actual clock trees are complete once all the built-in clock compatibles are
> probed, so this just pushes the protection after that point in time. The
> plan on the long term should be to use the CCF-built-in clock protection,
> once it's finished and merged, but it's not here yet.
>
> Regarding your example, I'm not aware of any critical mod0 clocks (not that
> it should matter, as they won't be orphans either).
My bad, the A13 mbus clock is one. The A23 is one too.
Both of these are probed through CLK_OF_DECLARE, and use directly
clk_prepare_enable on the clock given back by clk_register, which
won't work in your case.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160201/f9b58d28/attachment.sig>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-01 19:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-21 14:10 [PATCH 0/2] defer clk_gets on orphan clocks Emilio López
2016-01-21 14:10 ` Emilio López
2016-01-21 14:10 ` [PATCH 1/2] clk: sunxi: delay protected clocks until arch initcall Emilio López
2016-01-21 14:10 ` Emilio López
2016-01-27 15:37 ` Maxime Ripard
2016-01-27 15:37 ` Maxime Ripard
2016-01-27 16:14 ` Heiko Stübner
2016-01-27 16:14 ` Heiko Stübner
2016-01-27 20:38 ` Maxime Ripard
2016-01-27 20:38 ` Maxime Ripard
2016-01-27 21:07 ` Heiko Stübner
2016-01-27 21:07 ` Heiko Stübner
2016-01-27 18:53 ` Emilio López
2016-01-27 18:53 ` Emilio López
2016-02-01 19:32 ` Maxime Ripard [this message]
2016-02-01 19:32 ` Maxime Ripard
2016-01-21 14:19 ` [PATCH 2/2] clk: defer clk_gets on orphan clocks Emilio López
2016-01-21 14:19 ` Emilio López
2016-01-28 8:23 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-01-28 8:23 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-01-28 9:03 ` Heiko Stübner
2016-01-28 9:03 ` Heiko Stübner
2016-01-29 19:54 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-01-29 19:54 ` Stephen Boyd
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=20160201193232.GG4652@lukather \
--to=maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com \
--cc=emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk \
--cc=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=wens@csie.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.