From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: shawn.guo@freescale.com (Shawn Guo)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 15:46:00 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 4/5] ARM: imx: clk-gate2: Use post decrement for
 share_count
In-Reply-To: <CAOMZO5B=Jwodc+2hVhjXrCvERxuyKKviM+zYgH=ynvOSHLWBTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1404194129-25543-1-git-send-email-festevam@gmail.com>
 <1404194129-25543-4-git-send-email-festevam@gmail.com>
 <20140701115252.GM14471@dragon>
 <CAOMZO5BmJFmjYP9=rfR5eRKWPioPoW=UjE_h=Q3kbEAJGRixAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140702152942.12768.85270@quantum>
 <CAOMZO5B=Jwodc+2hVhjXrCvERxuyKKviM+zYgH=ynvOSHLWBTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140703074553.GA30239@dragon>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 01:52:56PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> >> If share_count is 1 it means that someone else is using the clock and
> >> we can't disable it.
> >
> > Why do you keep track of share_count at all? Is the enable_count
> > bookkeeping within the clock framework insufficient for your needs?
> 
> What we are trying to handle here is the case when two clocks share
> the same clock gating bit.
> 
> Let's say clocks clk1 and clk2 share the same clock gating bit.
> 
> What we want to achieve are:
> 
> Scenario 1:
> 
> clk2 is disabled
> clk1 is enabled --> clock gate bit is set to 1
> clk1 is disabled --> clock gate bit is set to 0. As clk2 is disabled,
> it is OK to gate off the clock here
> 
> Scenario 2:
> 
> clk1 is enabled -> clock gate bit is set to 1
> clk2 is disabled -> clock gate bit cannot be set to 0 because clk1 is enabled

This never happens.  If clk2 is disabled by clk_disable() without being
enabled by clk_enable() beforehand, it returns from __clk_disable()
immediately due to hitting of the WARN below.

	if (WARN_ON(clk->enable_count == 0))
		return;

Shawn

> 
> We currently have arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-gate2.c and we are trying to
> fix it because the scenario 2 is not working.
> 
> I am wondering if we should just extend drivers/clk/clk-gate.c to
> handle shared clock instead of doing this in arch/arm/mach-imx?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Fabio Estevam