From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ccross@google.com (Colin Cross) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:52:53 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 0/4] Add a generic struct clk In-Reply-To: <20110524172231.GA2764@b20223-02.ap.freescale.net> References: <1305876469.325655.313573683829.0.gpush@pororo> <20110524172231.GA2764@b20223-02.ap.freescale.net> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Richard Zhao wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 04:12:24PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote: >> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Jeremy Kerr wrote: >> > [This series was originally titled 'Add a common struct clk', but >> > the goals have changed since that first set of patches. We're now aiming >> > for a more complete generic clock infrastructure, rather than just >> > abstracting struct clk] >> > >> > [This series still needs work, see the TODO section below] >> > >> > [Totally RFC at the moment] >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > These patches are an attempt to allow platforms to share clock code. At >> > present, the definitions of 'struct clk' are local to platform code, >> > which makes allocating and initialising cross-platform clock sources >> > difficult, and makes it impossible to compile a single image containing >> > support for two ARM platforms with different struct clks. >> > >> > The three patches are for the architecture-independent kernel code, >> > introducing the common clk infrastructure. The changelog for the first >> > patch includes details about the new clock definitions. >> > >> > The second patch implements clk_set_rate, and in doing so adds >> > functionality to walk the clock tree in both directions. >> > >> > clk_set_parent is left unimplemented, see TODO below for why. >> > >> > The third and fourth patches provide some basic clocks (fixed-rate and >> > gated), mostly to serve as an example of the hardware implementation. >> > I'm intending to later provide similar base clocks for mux and divider >> > hardware clocks. >> > >> > Many thanks to the following for their input: >> > ?* Benjamin Herrenschmidt >> > ?* Thomas Gleixner >> > ?* Ben Dooks >> > ?* Baruch Siach >> > ?* Russell King >> > ?* Uwe Kleine-K?nig >> > ?* Lorenzo Pieralisi >> > ?* Vincent Guittot >> > ?* Sascha Hauer >> > ?* Ryan Mallon >> > ?* Colin Cross >> > ?* Jassi Brar >> > ?* Saravana Kannan >> >> I have a similar set of patches I was working on that handles a little >> more of the common code than these. ?I can post them if you want, but >> for now I'll just point out where I had different ideas, and not muddy >> the waters with conflicting patches. >> >> > TODO: >> > >> > ?* Need to figure out the locking around clk_set_parent. Changing the in-kernel >> > ? clock topology requires acquiring both the mutex (to prevent against races >> > ? with clk_prepare, which may propagate to the parent clock) and the spinlock >> > ? (to prevent the same race with clk_enable). >> > >> > ? However, we should also be changing the hardware clock topology in sync with >> > ? the in-kernel clock topology, which would imply that both locks *also* need >> > ? to be held while updating the parent in the hardware (ie, in >> > ? clk_hw_ops->set_parent) too. ?However, I believe some platform clock >> > ? implementations may require this callback to be able to sleep. Comments? >> >> This sequence is the best I could come up with without adding a >> temporary 2nd parent: >> 1. lock prepare mutex > Maybe tell child clocks "I'm going to change clock rate, please stop work if needed" >> 2. call prepare on the new parent if prepare_count > 0 >> 3. lock the enable spinlock >> 4. call enable on the new parent if enable_count > 0 >> 5. change the parent pointer to the new parent >> 6. unlock the spinlock >> 7. call the set_parent callback > Why do it need to sleep if it only set some hw registers? Most implementations don't, and I would be fine with saying clk_set_parent sleeps, but the set_parent op does not, but that prevents clock chips on sleeping busses like i2c. >> 8. lock the enable spinlock >> 9. call disable on the old parent iff you called enable on the new >> parent (enable_count may have changed) >> 10. unlock the enable spinlock >> 11. call unprepare on the old parent if prepare_count > propagate rate here and also tell child clocks "rate changed already, change your > parameters and go on to work". Yes, propagate rate is needed. >> 12. unlock prepare mutex >> >> The only possible problem I see is that if a clock starts disabled at >> step 1., and clk_enable is called on it between steps 6 and 7, >> clk_enable will return having enabled the new parent, but the clock is >> still running off the old parent. ?As soon as the clock gets switched >> to the new parent, the clock will be properly enabled. ?I don't see >> this as a huge problem - calling clk_set_parent on a clock while it is >> enabled may not even work without causing glitches on some platforms. > some do be glitch free, especially for cpu clock parents. >> >> I guess the only way around it would be to store a temporary >> "new_parent" pointer between steps 5 and 9, and have >> clk_enable/disable operate on both the current parent and the new >> parent. ?They would also need to refcount the extra enables separately >> to undo on the old parent. >> >> > ?* tglx and I have been discussing different ways of passing clock information >> > ? to the clock hardware implementation. I'm proposing providing a base 'struct >> > ? clk_hw', which implementations subclass by wrapping in their own structure >> > ? (or one of a set of simple 'library' structures, like clk_hw_mux or >> > ? clk_hw_gate). ?The clk_hw base is passed as the first argument to all >> > ? clk_hw_ops callbacks. >> > >> > ? tglx's plan is to create a separate struct clk_hwdata, which contains a >> > ? union of base data structures for common clocks: div, mux, gate, etc. The >> > ? ops callbacks are passed a clk_hw, plus a clk_hwdata, and most of the base >> > ? hwdata fields are handled within the core clock code. This means less >> > ? encapsulation of clock implementation logic, but more coverage of >> > ? clock basics through the core code. >> >> I don't think they should be a union, I think there should be 3 >> separate private datas, and three sets of clock ops, for the three >> different types of clock blocks: rate changers (dividers and plls), >> muxes, and gates. ?These blocks are very often combined - a device >> clock often has a mux and a divider, and clk_set_parent and >> clk_set_rate on the same struct clk both need to work. >> >> > ? tglx, could you send some details about your approach? I'm aiming to refine >> > ? this series with the good bits from each technique. >> > >> > ?* The clock registration code probably needs work. This is the domain >> > ? of the platform/board maintainers, any wishes here? > When clock init, data in struct clk may not be synced with hw registers. After > enabled minimal needed clk (cpu, core bus etc), we need sync the whole tree, > disable zero enable_count clocks, set correct .rate ... . The sync function > is also common code, right? but not have to be called all times I think. I believe each clock is synced with its hardware during clk_register by calling the recalc_rate and get_parent callbacks. > Thanks > Richard >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > >> > Jeremy >> > >> > -- >> > >> > --- >> > Jeremy Kerr (4): >> > ? ? ?clk: Add a generic clock infrastructure >> > ? ? ?clk: Implement clk_set_rate >> > ? ? ?clk: Add fixed-rate clock >> > ? ? ?clk: Add simple gated clock >> > >> > -- >> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >> > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org >> > More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > Please read the FAQ at ?http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >