[PATCH v2 10/11] clk: fix CLK_SET_RATE_GATE with clock rate protection

[jbrunet@baylibre.com (Jerome Brunet)]

On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 16:42 +0300, Adriana Reus wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com> wrote:
> > Using clock rate protection, we can now enforce CLK_SET_RATE_GATE along the
> > clock tree
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
> > ---
> > ?drivers/clk/clk.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> > ?1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > index 01306191133c..6ee5fc59cf1f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > @@ -491,6 +491,9 @@ static void clk_core_unprepare(struct clk_core *core)
> > ????????if (WARN_ON(core->prepare_count == 1 && core->flags &
> > CLK_IS_CRITICAL))
> > ????????????????return;
> > 
> > +???????if (core->flags & CLK_SET_RATE_GATE)
> > +???????????????clk_core_rate_unprotect(core);
> 
> ^ function call before declaration (unless i missed something when applying),
> ? gets fixed in following patch, but makes this one not compile standalone.
> 

You didn't miss anything, I did. It is now fixed


> drivers/clk/clk.c: In function 'clk_core_unprepare':
> drivers/clk/clk.c:495:3: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'clk_core_rate_unprotect' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> ???clk_core_rate_unprotect(core);
> 
> > +
> > ????????if (--core->prepare_count > 0)
> > ????????????????return;
> > 
> > @@ -561,6 +564,14 @@ static int clk_core_prepare(struct clk_core *core)
> > 
> > ????????core->prepare_count++;
> > 
> > +???????/*
> > +????????* CLK_SET_RATE_GATE is a special case of clock protection
> > +????????* Instead of a consumer protection, the provider is protecting
> > +????????* itself when prepared
> > +????????*/
> > +???????if (core->flags & CLK_SET_RATE_GATE)
> > +???????????????clk_core_rate_protect(core);
> 
> ^ same here;
> Note: maybe have a quick check that each patch compiles individually
> (if you haven't already), I did not check them all.

I should have. Now it is done and it is OK (with our remarks fixed, of course)
Thanks a lot for pointing this out.

> > +
> > ????????return 0;
> > ?}
> > 
> > @@ -1738,9 +1749,6 @@ static int clk_core_set_rate_nolock(struct clk_core
> > *core,
> > ????????if (clk_core_rate_is_protected(core))
> > ????????????????return -EBUSY;
> > 
> > -???????if ((core->flags & CLK_SET_RATE_GATE) && core->prepare_count)
> > -???????????????return -EBUSY;
> > -
> > ????????/* calculate new rates and get the topmost changed clock */
> > ????????top = clk_calc_new_rates(core, req_rate);
> > ????????if (!top)
> > --
> > 2.9.4
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-clk" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at??http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html