Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] clk: add of_clk_get_parent_rate function

[Ray Jui <rjui-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

On 2/25/2015 10:51 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:13:15PM -0800, Ray Jui wrote:
>> Hi Sascha,
>>
>> On 2/25/2015 9:54 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>>> Hi Ray,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 04:55:00PM -0800, Ray Jui wrote:
>>>> Sometimes a clock needs to know the rate of its parent before itself is
>>>> registered to the framework. An example is that a PLL may need to
>>>> initialize itself to a specific VCO frequency, before registering to the
>>>> framework. The parent rate needs to be known, for PLL multipliers and
>>>> divisors to be configured properly.
>>>>
>>>> Introduce helper function of_clk_get_parent_rate, which can be used to
>>>> obtain the parent rate of a clock, given a device node and index.
>>>
>>> I can't see how this patch helps you. First it's not guaranteed that
>>> the parent is already registered, what do you do in this case?
>>
>> In the case when clock parent is not found, as you can see from the
>> code, it simply returns zero, just like other clk get rate APIs.
> 
> Yes, but what do you do with the 0 result then in your PLL initialization?
> 

As of the current code, it fails the PLL frequency initialization and
bails out. Thinking about it more, it actually makes more sense to just
warn and still go ahead to register the clock, in which case it will use
whatever default frequency after chip power on reset or a frequency
configured in the bootloader.

>>
>> I thought the order of clock registration is based on order of the clock
>> nodes in device tree. It makes sense to me to declare the parent clock
>> before a child clock, so it's guaranteed that the parent is registered
>> before the child.
> 
> No, you can't rely on that. The order of the device nodes may happen to
> define the order of clock initialization now, but that may change.
> device nodes are usually ordered by bus addresses, not by intended
> initialization order. Even if you reorder them everything must still
> work.
> 

Okay I get your point that the order of device nodes may not be relied
on for device initialization order. But then another mechanism should be
deployed to give developers the option to decide on the clock
initialization sequence. It can be optional but it should be there.

>>
>>> Then the clock framework doesn't require that you initialize the PLL
>>> before registering. That can be done in the clk ops later.
>>
>> Sure it's not mandatory. But what's wrong with me choosing to initialize
>> the PLL clock to a known frequency before registering it to the framework?
> 
> Appearantly you don't know the (input) frequency of the PLL when
> registering it to the framework, so the question must be: What's wrong
> with keeping it uninitialized?
> 
> If the PLL is unused then you don't care about it's initialization
> status. If it happens to be enabled by a bootloader and still unused
> at late_initcall time the clock framework will disable it so you
> have a known state then. If a consumer for the PLL appears it's its
> job to initialize it through the clk api.
> 
> Sascha
> 

Okay, what we need here is to initialize the PLL to a desired frequency,
based on device tree settings (since it will be configured differently,
among different boards). This is a PLL that 1) has limited options of
frequencies which it can be configured to, and 2) has multiple child
clocks, where is a more suitable place to initialize it to the desired
frequency than right before registering it to the framework? I know a
lot of people do it in the bootloader, but I thought we should be given
the flexibility of configuring it in the kernel.

When you say "consumers", do you mean 1) the device driver that uses the
PLL; or 2) the device driver that use the child clock of the PLL? If
it's case 1), then we don't really have a device driver that directly
uses the PLL, and I thought that's quite normal, as most PLLs don't
directly feed into any peripherals.

We do have multiple device drivers that use the child clocks of the PLL,
but it makes no sense to configure the PLL clock in any of those drivers.

Ray
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html