From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.221.49 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792764640; b=eluRMZO0EPUZ6z5xh8QPuEM1hEGrIOoC5BuXwqFHpYkDiQBezw8tyLgduOoR5xmIsMKZ KveorOS69NVu8TFLfVFJG6JaFk0BdnL19Cc0eeyRjBAh1UvYWW77QL09aLSqZsJiH2vPA VAGU98xgbvPCMpVrrtvzA4cyAS4J9YbSSgi6mhWAdgnFL+I1zr8Sf41JcKi8TX0veMY3z 5sNBW7npwRLSX6khmzV2rJbR8YudckdUHc2+UlRFCiv4BezajXPTXaMoF6i0fbcQPGXVl JKFrGjkwlcUB+8APgwUBZiIRKK2Vs5O1VO4w2vjUG0HeecauoG3+/jp/g7Qa575Jqfw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792764640; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:DKIM-Signature:X-Google-DKIM-Signature: X-Forwarded-Encrypted:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Gm-Gg:X-Received:Received: From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=rUCby3YZiB/c/K75Lnrq0ACWkSYD91hEUwrMnP6159o=; b=n8avfZLkwn8Nk+urZkE+CEL1AE0CbuNp1dBWyRp9UTSC02joHAh4RdVKz3iv18GpGjxT Z8ROR0VR4XQa/xdBUO2Z6WI4dix6b9DAMwZkVJsTSm3AS44QnLq2XkAqWkxhjB63tOVzK 5I73zaR1KTeywlcJfVJ5KyYR0vTVK1fB2d41qNulcQV9Tra57v4n8G6SuM61nJzUOu9cX QFefdLHqWNi20KzWNviKi1sHHHBNLAUXrXrU5MIl5QxEHvr/7Xsd51Mk6ktivXOudXlPn x0CcS/uvyeUQsNVpYQ8iyf25EPWHW/WkWfG5fJjO4n5P7ow3tY3lGXjOoH2Nmg+pD3g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none header.from=baylibre.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=baylibre.com; dkim=pass header.d=baylibre.com header.i=@baylibre.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=e0AuBiX7; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.221.49 Received: from mail-wr1-f49.google.com (mail-wr1-f49.google.com [209.85.221.49]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C49A0606A320 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2026 14:10:39 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org C49A0606A320 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=baylibre.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=baylibre.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=baylibre.com header.i=@baylibre.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=e0AuBiX7 Received: by mail-wr1-f49.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-48e00eee27dso603570f8f.0 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2026 07:10:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=baylibre.com; s=google; t=1792764638; x=1793369438; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-type:mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=rUCby3YZiB/c/K75Lnrq0ACWkSYD91hEUwrMnP6159o=; b=e0AuBiX76jwh08ObeSUHZUpPYy6aIjjZ6Y2mF6Zn/eMo44Op9NrIxpqY52XlzcmxA2 3CwWlqr/ErkX+u/dXoUk3B0vVQZjmCwVzBTBGWFGRgg8leEd4RBxralj0pEVQnP9wJLo UiUZXPRcHoV0lQm2sB82U1yj9vxyqVxnWX9gkwdmdNeS+njezFv/4phKY/yL3avoqKtH df1K5646c3wH7IB/BTut4Sa5rimc6qW1jsuBChWsAnmda3EU83nEl1QeZRpEP5n+C6H0 ot+AqDNxe+DlyyuTyK/33AQpgdltdjycVk3/40wOp4qj3NYforVJhgnJnxX321IXWZon t1tw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1792764638; x=1793369438; h=content-type:mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=rUCby3YZiB/c/K75Lnrq0ACWkSYD91hEUwrMnP6159o=; b=fuJUpzB3pupq32lVD5+ponJVSq+hKoWMPzIvPSPWqKZbW71HwuQoyFSNdk0wAulq4S 6iUp56un1bMy6TfocU/tQjWYsZ5KVpipZtKeVxsDvmznCEKv/3ERbZtCtsfbxukjMhba FBJnC9Q2E19Uovi3szdrIBVo29MK2adiv6NWIeRwPkqzGwgD5ew91eL6xpTqxX9HYg48 3hYeH90BnFFsRvMyuDBQptQzl19qjflJvtMqODwHvbqTlAcYoBrSXAO394uYceDb8AyF iAYpwwA+FHwtTDp1ueL1OvF0a26Go0bB5vE23m5bEwtSdKkuCK6uSbzsQePi+rGbywFx jjKA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBzgRvXbPXincuOwZ/ziL5XsxzCuroY1v1eBG5A2aLx9/tW2jeVnYS7ZVo16FzJf56K23Ta2Bm/CIBI=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYI6aRJiikYJ5L0HzorVje4KqW8cvSYy4vZuSq/n+fEjoGHkex0a p8Irwi03aj0WVse/zh4+3GgJsph3FDwmm3Seqrk+9gQibIEhmr/9DpAg1NRbJYNmRU8= X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou247aqV7P9lALA+pNl8JfAqd45U3IyxfZ0+kufBpJg2iKfi0D82zuygxbwCa+c 4SJfYXqgxNDFSvA7ucMNjoXf/IjW2onYW6LCO6KGZ+onVKmZwn6vG74IALMZ1v5/qje+4kKoaEX OloOMBQwkC/3cImU/Z6UbLl5QBriNJz0UlTiwLH979sEMFl1SKHRxLT1xBfaX2X1PfRFuf3Rg/D KXsx3VguFho3s/2Q4dGaQ2GcnEt/6PTto9a1A1kT5DRn+vzcWpbX06wMcHkARTYuIAevKaCmSrg DwmYxWHx+KBdgP7boNTRp7FyC33eOY9RodYSCGr6rpFBW4R3w138zUEnqhxBEew5qbSXCwPe+Lz qhqdJhRPcUUg1IJQG5rvX5nqVEJhLJMEz6ysVC34bqyCeqNz4bmYFRj69z9mq1EZkWg7jOfwX2C HvhKAWznBzzEcQCi6JGHrp9Tojp1IJvn4fhAHyratd3TwQubjixE74grCsj9PV7p/RCqOC3BH35 pvNrdvguYry7I+ab+5GFcqKNzR0R/iI7cASCVpmlauD/H+6cbLURbax8OCg1hcdzcOjQZezPFXb GrIvwPa+qITAfNCiBzLb X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:986:b0:48d:ef7a:e59f with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-48e3859df5dmr4185485f8f.17.1792764638081; Fri, 23 Oct 2026 07:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (82-67-6-57.subs.proxad.net. [82.67.6.57]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-48e3d3ee6a5sm73564f8f.12.2026.10.23.07.10.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 23 Oct 2026 07:10:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerome Brunet To: Brian Masney , Miquel Raynal Cc: Stephen Boyd , Abel Vesa , Peng Fan , Frank Li , Sascha Hauer , Pengutronix Kernel Team , Fabio Estevam , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Thomas Petazzoni , Ian Ray , =?utf-8?Q?Herv=C3=A9?= Codina , Luca Ceresoli , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, imx@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] clk: Use v2 rate calculation on i.MX8MP In-Reply-To: References: <20261021-ge-clk-lcm-v1-0-246cc35b5ffb@bootlin.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2026 16:10:34 +0200 Message-ID: <1jtsmch5id.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com> X-Mailing-List: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On mer. 21 oct. 2026 at 10:11, Brian Masney wrote: > Hi Miquel (and Jerome), > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 03:09:56PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Thanks to Brian's series, we can finally solve the problem of rate >> calculation faced with the i.MX8MP LDB/PIX clocks. I've tested this >> series using a v7.1 mainline kernel with a lot of unrelated DRM >> patches. I then re-applied it on top of clk-next after fixing the few >> conflicts when applying Brian's series, but that means I cannot (yet) >> run a 7.2/7.3 kernel on the platform (and applying this series with b4 >> will fail due to Brian's series no longer applying on top of clk-next). >> >> The DTS patch is there for reference, I don't mind if it's not picked >> up. >> >> Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal > > Thanks for testing and posting this! > > I know that Jerome would like to see some changes to my rate change > series before it can be merged. I'm going to probably poorly describe > his concerns here, so apologies in advance if I miscommunicate this > Jerome. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify. > > - Currently the latest version posted (v8) to the list has the LCM > helper (clk_hw_get_children_lcm) in drivers/clk/clk.c, and the LCM > helper should be in clk-divider.c. I agree that it should be in the > divider code, but we'd have to export some additional APIs to allow > that. In the future if we went with what's in v8, and wanted to fix > the fractional dividers, then it would need a similar type of helper > in clk.c, which is not ideal. I initially went with this approach to > limit the APIs that are exported from the clk core. > > - I have a draft v9 series that I haven't posted yet that adds two new > helpers: clk_hw_get_num_children() and clk_hw_get_child_by_index() > similar to the existing functions for the parents. This allows moving > the LCM logic into clk-divider.c where it belongs, however the > downside to this approach is that it expands the clk exported APIs so > that providers will be able to fully walk the clk tree. The concern is > that providers may abuse this in the future and it may limit future > changes / cleanups to the clk core. For example, if we wanted to clean > up the way locking is done, this may potentially limit the available > options. > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/clk/linux.git/log/?h=clk-divider-scaling-v9 > > - He would like to see it where each clk consumer sets the min/max rate > that's acceptable, and the clk scaling in the provider takes those > ranges into account when rates are negotiated. > > Anyways, please chime in Jerome if I got this right / wrong, and any > additional concerns. > Hi Brian, Miquel, Thanks Brian for the summary, and Miquel for testing and posting this. The i.MX8MP LDB/pixel case is a real problem and I'd like us to solve it. My concerns are about how, more than whether. You got most of it. The main nuance is I want to convey is where it should live IMO: not in a divider helper, and not in providers at all, but in the core. I'll try to explain. So far, CCF has preserved the settings of each element, or more honestly, left them alone: if a divider divides by 4, it keeps doing so whatever happens to its parent. This behavior has been there for years and many devices rely on it, even if unknowingly. Miquel, I understand you would rather make the new behavior the default, but I think this one is here to stay. That said, it would be nice to have a way to say that the rate should be preserved rather than the setting. I'll come back to that. My first concern is about the responsibilities of each component. IMO a provider should only describe the transfer function it implements: "given this parent rate, here is what I can do". It should not walk the tree or care about what its children are doing. Coordinating the providers is the core's job, without assumptions about their transfer functions. Providers already query their parents: a mux asks each candidate parent what it can provide, and a clock with CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT forwards its request upward. That is the request path, and the core stays in charge of it. Reading the state of children or siblings, and deciding on their behalf, is a different thing. Once a provider is allowed to do that, there is no good reason to deny it to the others, and I think that would make the core much harder to maintain. It could also get in the way of other pressing work, like the global lock problem, where tree walking will certainly play a critical role. Miquel's patch 2 is a good illustration: the helper ends up comparing the clk_hw of the tree with the inner clk_hw of a composite, which is not part of the tree. My second concern is that it is tied to the integer divider, since it relies on the LCM. If another element with a different transfer function sits on the path, it does not work, as we discussed. We could extend the principle to other types, but: * I don't see how the different types would reconcile, since each one does its own thing in its own .determine_rate(); * the change is no longer simple and harmless if it has to spread to every provider to work. The behavior is also hard for consumers to predict. For example, the parent rate is only negotiated with the subtree of the divider's direct parent. With a gate between the divider and the PLL, the other branches of the PLL are left out. That could be fixed with more tree walking in the provider, which brings us back to my first point. If such a mechanism is needed, I would much prefer it done entirely in the core, in a generic way, with no assumption about the transfer functions involved. I realize this may go against a direction suggested at a previous LPC, which this series followed, and I think the points above are worth reconsidering it for. I say "if" because I doubt clock trees are designed with runtime rate negotiation in mind. So far, we have mostly dealt with these cases by removing CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT and using assigned-clock-rates on the shared ancestor. I understand that falls short when the PLL has to follow the display mode, as here. For rate negotiation, my suggestion would be to reuse what the framework already has: clock ranges, and re-running .determine_rate() on the children being dragged along, with the common ancestor's rate pinned. When that rate does not suit a sibling's range, other ancestor rates can be tried within the constraints, rather than giving up. clk_set_rate() is a best effort function. It tries to get as close to the request as possible, honoring the ranges of every clock along the path, and it is up to the consumer to decide whether the result is good enough. That decision is lost if the framework recomputes the rates of a sibling branch on its own. Ranges could help it decide: either "I'm fine with the new rate", or -EBUSY. What I'm suggesting is to treat any clock with a range as one that needs updating. Its consumer cared enough to tell us what it can and cannot cope with. That removes the need for a specific flag, and puts the rate policy in the consumer, which is where I'd prefer use case choices to live, rather than in the provider or the core. It would also fix clocks being dragged out of their range during an update. Presumably, a clock without a range does not care enough to give us a decider, so the framework has no basis to act on its behalf and keeps today's behavior. I think this behavior will keep on being good enough for the vast majority clocks out there and it is a lot lighter on the math side (which is already quite severe as it is) I've been checking whether the idea is remotely feasible. It involves multiple planning stages and multiple tops. It is still very rough, but there is the beginning of something: https://github.com/jbrun3t/linux/commits/clk/clk-rate-range-update/ Miquel, if you fancy trying it, please let me know whether it works for you. All you should need is to set a range on the clocks you care about. Sorry for this rather long explanation. Brian, your series is what got this discussion going, I know a lot of efforts have gone into it already. I'd be glad to work on this together. > Brian > -- Jerome