Re: About clk maintainership [Was: Re: [PULL] Add variants of devm_clk_get for prepared and enabled clocks enabled clocks]

From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	thierry.reding@gmail.com, lee.jones@linaro.org,
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org,
	Ludovic.Desroches@microchip.com, o.rempel@pengutronix.de,
	andy.shevchenko@gmail.com, aardelean@deviqon.com,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	broonie@kernel.org, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, a.zummo@towertech.it,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
	wsa@kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com
Subject: Re: About clk maintainership [Was: Re: [PULL] Add variants of devm_clk_get for prepared and enabled clocks enabled clocks]
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 17:38:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210802163824.GK22278@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210802152755.ibisunvibmwhiyry@pengutronix.de>

On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 05:27:55PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Russell,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 10:48:10AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > I think devm_clk_get() should not be part of CCF but should be
> > part of the interface level - it's silly to have devm_clk_get()
> > being CCF but not clk_get(). The same should go for the other
> > devm wrappers around the plain clk_* interfaces.
> 
> What is the practical difference between "Function X is part of CCF" and
> "Function X is part of the clk interface and there is only CCF who
> implements it"?

clkdev is maintained by me as part of the API, and provides clk_get()
functionality for all clk implementations. To then have devm_clk_get(),
which merely provides a wrapper around clk_get() adding the devm
semantics being part of CCF is not sane - devm_clk_get() isn't
specific to CCF or in fact any clk API implementation.

> > There have been several different approaches to wrapping things up,
> > but here's a question: should we make it easier to do the lazy thing
> > (get+enable) or should we make it easier to be power efficient?
> > Shouldn't we be encouraging people to write power efficient drivers?
> 
> Yeah, sounds compelling, but I wonder if that's of practical importance.
> How many driver authors do you expect to lure into making a better
> driver just because devm_clk_get_prepared() doesn't exist? In contrast:
> How many drivers become simpler with devm_clk_get_prepared() and so
> it becomes easier to maintain them and easier to spot bugs?
> In the absence of devm_clk_get_prepared(), is it better that several
> frameworks (or drivers) open code it?

It probably depends on where you stand on power management and power
efficiency issues. Personally, I would like to see more effort put
into drivers to make them more power efficient, and I believe in the
coming years, power efficiency is going to become a big issue.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!