[PATCH 2/9] clk: reparent orphans after critical clocks enabled

Dong Aisheng
2017-06-20T09:25:30Z

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 06:51:40PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 05/15, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > The orphan clocks reparent operation should be moved after the critical
> > clocks enabled, otherwise it may get a chance to disable a newly registered
> > critical clock which triggers the following warning.
> >
> > [ 0.000000] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at drivers/clk/clk.c:597 clk_core_disable+0xb4/0xe0
> > [ 0.000000] Modules linked in:
> > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.11.0-rc1-00056-gdff1f66-dirty #1373
> > [ 0.000000] Hardware name: Generic DT based system
> > [ 0.000000] Backtrace:
> > [ 0.000000] [<c010c4bc>] (dump_backtrace) from [<c010c764>] (show_stack+0x18/0x1c)
> > [ 0.000000] r6:600000d3 r5:00000000 r4:c0e26358 r3:00000000
> > [ 0.000000] [<c010c74c>] (show_stack) from [<c040599c>] (dump_stack+0xb4/0xe8)
> > [ 0.000000] [<c04058e8>] (dump_stack) from [<c0125c94>] (__warn+0xd8/0x104)
> > [ 0.000000] r10:c0c21cd0 r9:c048aa78 r8:00000255 r7:00000009 r6:c0c1cd90 r5:00000000
> > [ 0.000000] r4:00000000 r3:c0e01d34
> > [ 0.000000] [<c0125bbc>] (__warn) from [<c0125d74>] (warn_slowpath_null+0x28/0x30)
> > [ 0.000000] r9:00000000 r8:ef00bf80 r7:c165ac4c r6:ef00bf80 r5:ef00bf80 r4:ef00bf80
> > [ 0.000000] [<c0125d4c>] (warn_slowpath_null) from [<c048aa78>] (clk_core_disable+0xb4/0xe0)
> > [ 0.000000] [<c048a9c4>] (clk_core_disable) from [<c048be88>] (clk_core_disable_lock+0x20/0x2c)
> > [ 0.000000] r4:000000d3 r3:c0e0af00
> > [ 0.000000] [<c048be68>] (clk_core_disable_lock) from [<c048c224>] (clk_core_disable_unprepare+0x14/0x28)
> > [ 0.000000] r5:00000000 r4:ef00bf80
> > [ 0.000000] [<c048c210>] (clk_core_disable_unprepare) from [<c048c270>] (__clk_set_parent_after+0x38/0x54)
> > [ 0.000000] r4:ef00bd80 r3:000010a0
> > [ 0.000000] [<c048c238>] (__clk_set_parent_after) from [<c048daa8>] (clk_register+0x4d0/0x648)
> > [ 0.000000] r6:ef00d500 r5:ef00bf80 r4:ef00bd80 r3:ef00bfd4
> > [ 0.000000] [<c048d5d8>] (clk_register) from [<c048dc30>] (clk_hw_register+0x10/0x1c)
> > [ 0.000000] r9:00000000 r8:00000003 r7:00000000 r6:00000824 r5:00000001 r4:ef00d500
> > [ 0.000000] [<c048dc20>] (clk_hw_register) from [<c048e698>] (_register_divider+0xcc/0x120)
> > [ 0.000000] [<c048e5cc>] (_register_divider) from [<c048e730>] (clk_register_divider+0x44/0x54)
> > [ 0.000000] r10:00000004 r9:00000003 r8:00000001 r7:00000000 r6:00000003 r5:00000001
> > [ 0.000000] r4:f0810030
> > [ 0.000000] [<c048e6ec>] (clk_register_divider) from [<c0d3ff58>] (imx7ulp_clocks_init+0x558/0xe98)
> > [ 0.000000] r7:c0e296f8 r6:c165c808 r5:00000000 r4:c165c808
> > [ 0.000000] [<c0d3fa00>] (imx7ulp_clocks_init) from [<c0d24db0>] (of_clk_init+0x118/0x1e0)
> > [ 0.000000] r10:00000001 r9:c0e01f68 r8:00000000 r7:c0e01f60 r6:ef7f8974 r5:ef0035c0
> > [ 0.000000] r4:00000006
> > [ 0.000000] [<c0d24c98>] (of_clk_init) from [<c0d04a50>] (time_init+0x2c/0x38)
> > [ 0.000000] r10:efffed40 r9:c0d61a48 r8:c0e78000 r7:c0e07900 r6:ffffffff r5:c0e78000
> > [ 0.000000] r4:00000000
> > [ 0.000000] [<c0d04a24>] (time_init) from [<c0d00b8c>] (start_kernel+0x218/0x394)
> > [ 0.000000] [<c0d00974>] (start_kernel) from [<6000807c>] (0x6000807c)
> > [ 0.000000] r10:00000000 r9:410fc075 r8:6000406a r7:c0e0c930 r6:c0d61a44 r5:c0e07918
> > [ 0.000000] r4:c0e78294
> > [ 0.000000] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>
> The warning is long and scary and spans many lines, but the
> scenario is described in one sentence. Please further describe
> the scenario that introduces this warning without requiring the
> reviewer to figure it out themselves! I certainly won't remember
> 2 years from now what happened here.
>

Yes, my fault.

I will add more descriptions in next version.

Below is the draft explaination.

This issue actually is caused by that in current code, orphan clocks
re-parent operation is before the critical clock enable operation.
Before the critical clock is enabled, it may has a chance to be disabled
already in orphan re-parent operation.

Assuming we have two clocks: A and B while B is A's parent.
Clock A has flag: CLK_OPS_PARENT_ENABLE
Clock B has flag: CLK_IS_CRITICAL

Step 1:
Clock A is registered, then it becomes orphan.

Step 2:
Clock B is registered. Before clock B reach the critical clock
enable operation, orphan A find B parent and do reparent, then
the parent B may be disabled in __clk_set_parent_after()
due to CLK_OPS_PARENT_ENABLE flag.

static int __clk_core_init(struct clk_core *core) {
.............
hlist_for_each_entry_safe(orphan, tmp2, &clk_orphan_list, child_node) {
struct clk_core *parent = __clk_init_parent(orphan);

/*
* we could call __clk_set_parent, but that would result in a
* redundant call to the .set_rate op, if it exists
*/
if (parent) {
__clk_set_parent_before(orphan, parent);
__clk_set_parent_after(orphan, parent, NULL);
__clk_recalc_accuracies(orphan);
__clk_recalc_rates(orphan, 0);
}
}
....

if (core->flags & CLK_IS_CRITICAL) {
unsigned long flags;

clk_core_prepare(core);

flags = clk_enable_lock();
clk_core_enable(core);
clk_enable_unlock(flags);
}
...
}

> >
> > Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> > Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
> > Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>
>
> This would want a fixes tag assuming it's fixing something.
>

Yes, then it should be commit fc8726a2c021
clk: core: support clocks which requires parents enable (part 2)
Did not consider that situation.

Will add later.

Regards
Dong Aisheng

> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
> --
> 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