From: linux@prisktech.co.nz (Tony Prisk)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Inconsistency in clk framework
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:13:37 +1300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1355976817.2968.12.camel@gitbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121219190824.GX14363@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 19:08 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:00:49AM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 06:34 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 09:26 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 05:10:33PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > >
> > > > > In attempting to remove some IS_ERR_OR_NULL references, it was pointed
> > > > > out that clk_get() can return NULL if CONFIG_HAVE_CLK is not defined.
> > > >
> > > > That is correct - but why is that a problem? As far as users are
> > > > concerned, NULL is a valid clock. If HAVE_CLK is undefined, do you
> > > > want all your drivers to suddenly stop working?
> > >
> > > That will be where the misunderstanding has occurred - I didn't consider
> > > NULL to be a valid clock.
> > >
> > > Given that NULL is a valid clock, I guess all tests against get_clk and
> > > of_get_clk results should be IS_ERR_OR_NULL. Correct?
> > >
> > For the sake of clarity, I should rephrase:
> >
> > If the driver can't operate with a NULL clk, it should use a
> > IS_ERR_OR_NULL test to test for failure, rather than IS_ERR.
>
> Why should a _consumer_ of a clock care? It is _very_ important that
> people get this idea - to a consumer, the struct clk is just an opaque
> cookie. The fact that it appears to be a pointer does _not_ mean that
> the driver can do any kind of dereferencing on that pointer - it should
> never do so.
As a simple example:
We have a PWM module that requires a clock source to be enabled before
registers can be read/written.
*pseudo code*
x = clk_get("pwm_clock")
if IS_ERR(x) then fail
err = clk_enable(x)
if (err != 0) then fail
start writing to module registers
Assuming HAVE_CLK is undefined:
x = clk_get("pwm_clock") (= NULL)
if IS_ERR(x) then fail (not an error)
err = clk_enable(x) (= 0)
if (err) then fail (not an error)
start writing to module registers
(register writes lock the bus because the clock wasn't really enabled,
but no errors occurred enabling the clock)
I apologise if it seems like I am not getting it, but I would like to
understand this properly to avoid further problems later.
Regards
Tony P
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-20 4:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-19 4:10 Inconsistency in clk framework Tony Prisk
2012-12-19 9:26 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-12-19 17:34 ` Tony Prisk
2012-12-19 19:00 ` Tony Prisk
2012-12-19 19:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-12-20 4:13 ` Tony Prisk [this message]
2012-12-20 9:40 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
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=1355976817.2968.12.camel@gitbox \
--to=linux@prisktech.co.nz \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).