From: sassmann@kpanic.de (Stefan Assmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] clk: initial clock driver for TWL6030
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:04:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53DA30CD.5020903@kpanic.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140731110531.GH17528@sirena.org.uk>
On 31.07.2014 13:05, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:56:15AM +0200, Stefan Assmann wrote:
>> On 30.07.2014 19:50, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:02:29PM +0200, Stefan Assmann wrote:
>
>>>> +static int twl6030_clk32kg_is_prepared(struct clk_hw *hw)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct twl6030_desc *desc = to_twl6030_desc(hw);
>>>> +
>>>> + return desc->enabled;
>>>> +}
>
>>> Why not just check the register map - can't the register be cached? If
>>> that's not possible a comment would be good.
>
>> I just took atl_clk_is_enabled() as template. If you say it's better
>> to read the value, that can be arranged.
>
> It might be worth doing this if you have to go to hardware to check the
> status, if you can read a cache then just using the register is less
> error prone.
Ok.
>
>>>> + else
>>>> + clk_prepare(clk);
>
>>> Why is the clock driver defaulting to enabling the clock, and if it
>>> needs to shouldn't it be doing a prepere_enable() even if the enable
>>> happens not to do anything to the hardware? Otherwise child clocks
>>> might get confused.
>
>> Mike advised me to convert the functions from enable/disable to
>> prepare/unprepare because i2c transactions may sleep. That's what I did.
>> The code no longer enables the clock and just prepares it. So IIUC the
>> call to clk_prepare() should be fine.
>
> That's not going to help consumers of the clock, you do need to move the
> operations to prepare() but users shouldn't need to know what happens in
> prepare() and what happens in enable().
>
> You've also not addressed the comment about defaulting to enabling the
> clock in the first place.
Maybe I misinterpreted your previous comment, sorry. So if I got it right
this time you're saying that the prepare/enable, disable/unprepare should
be seen as a single step. If that's the case then using prepare_enable()
should be used indeed.
Tero suggested to look into making this a generic i2c clock driver. I'll
look into that and report back.
Stefan
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Stefan Assmann <sassmann-llIHtaV5axyzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
mturquette-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org,
peter.ujfalusi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org,
t-kristo-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org,
"Andreas Färber" <afaerber-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: initial clock driver for TWL6030
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:04:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53DA30CD.5020903@kpanic.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140731110531.GH17528-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org>
On 31.07.2014 13:05, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:56:15AM +0200, Stefan Assmann wrote:
>> On 30.07.2014 19:50, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:02:29PM +0200, Stefan Assmann wrote:
>
>>>> +static int twl6030_clk32kg_is_prepared(struct clk_hw *hw)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct twl6030_desc *desc = to_twl6030_desc(hw);
>>>> +
>>>> + return desc->enabled;
>>>> +}
>
>>> Why not just check the register map - can't the register be cached? If
>>> that's not possible a comment would be good.
>
>> I just took atl_clk_is_enabled() as template. If you say it's better
>> to read the value, that can be arranged.
>
> It might be worth doing this if you have to go to hardware to check the
> status, if you can read a cache then just using the register is less
> error prone.
Ok.
>
>>>> + else
>>>> + clk_prepare(clk);
>
>>> Why is the clock driver defaulting to enabling the clock, and if it
>>> needs to shouldn't it be doing a prepere_enable() even if the enable
>>> happens not to do anything to the hardware? Otherwise child clocks
>>> might get confused.
>
>> Mike advised me to convert the functions from enable/disable to
>> prepare/unprepare because i2c transactions may sleep. That's what I did.
>> The code no longer enables the clock and just prepares it. So IIUC the
>> call to clk_prepare() should be fine.
>
> That's not going to help consumers of the clock, you do need to move the
> operations to prepare() but users shouldn't need to know what happens in
> prepare() and what happens in enable().
>
> You've also not addressed the comment about defaulting to enabling the
> clock in the first place.
Maybe I misinterpreted your previous comment, sorry. So if I got it right
this time you're saying that the prepare/enable, disable/unprepare should
be seen as a single step. If that's the case then using prepare_enable()
should be used indeed.
Tero suggested to look into making this a generic i2c clock driver. I'll
look into that and report back.
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-31 12:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-30 14:02 [PATCH 0/2] Enable wifi on pandaboard Stefan Assmann
2014-07-30 14:02 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-30 14:02 ` [PATCH 1/2] mfd: twl-core: move TWL6030 defines to twl.h Stefan Assmann
2014-07-30 14:02 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-31 8:36 ` Lee Jones
2014-07-31 8:36 ` Lee Jones
2014-07-31 8:46 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-31 8:46 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-30 14:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] clk: initial clock driver for TWL6030 Stefan Assmann
2014-07-30 14:02 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-30 14:29 ` Andreas Färber
2014-07-30 14:29 ` Andreas Färber
2014-07-30 14:36 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-30 14:36 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-30 17:50 ` Mark Brown
2014-07-30 17:50 ` Mark Brown
2014-07-31 9:56 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-31 9:56 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-31 11:05 ` Mark Brown
2014-07-31 11:05 ` Mark Brown
2014-07-31 12:04 ` Stefan Assmann [this message]
2014-07-31 12:04 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-31 19:14 ` Mike Turquette
2014-07-31 19:14 ` Mike Turquette
2014-07-31 11:28 ` Tero Kristo
2014-07-31 11:28 ` Tero Kristo
2014-07-31 11:58 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-31 11:58 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-31 13:16 ` Tero Kristo
2014-07-31 13:16 ` Tero Kristo
2014-07-31 12:26 ` Peter Ujfalusi
2014-07-31 12:26 ` Peter Ujfalusi
2014-07-31 12:54 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-31 12:54 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-31 12:58 ` Peter Ujfalusi
2014-07-31 12:58 ` Peter Ujfalusi
2014-07-31 14:05 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-31 14:05 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-07-31 19:20 ` Mike Turquette
2014-07-31 19:20 ` Mike Turquette
2014-08-01 10:04 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-08-01 10:04 ` Stefan Assmann
2014-08-01 10:38 ` Mark Brown
2014-08-01 10:38 ` Mark Brown
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=53DA30CD.5020903@kpanic.de \
--to=sassmann@kpanic.de \
--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.