Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4277 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 05:22:32PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 04:58:54PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 04:16:29PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 03:47:43PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > On 08/25/2014 03:39 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:44:10PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:12:30PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:01:06PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:38:09AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > > > >>> [...]
> > > > > >>>>> If not, perhaps the clock driver should force the clock to be
> > > > > >>>>> enabled (perhaps only if the DRM/KMS driver isn't enabled?).
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take any code that will do that in our
> > > > > >>>> clock driver.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I'm not going to have a huge list of ifdef depending on configuration
> > > > > >>>> options to know which clock to enable, especially when clk_get should
> > > > > >>>> have the consumer device as an argument.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Are you saying is that you want to solve a platform-specific problem by
> > > > > >>> pushing code into simple, generic drivers so that your platform code can
> > > > > >>> stay "clean"?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Are you saying that this driver would become "dirty" with such a patch?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes. Others have said the same and even provided alternative solutions
> > > > > > on how to solve what's seemingly a platform-specific problem in a
> > > > > > platform-specific way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is not platform specific, any platform with a complete clock driver
> > > > > will suffer from the same problem (the clock driver disabling unclaimed
> > > > > ahb gates, and thus killing the video output) if it wants to use simplefb
> > > > > for early console support.
> > > > 
> > > > It is platform specific in that your platform may require certain clocks
> > > > to remain on.
> > > 
> > > The platform doesn't. simplefb does. simplefb is the obvious consumer
> > > for these clocks, and given the current API and abstraction we have,
> > > it should be the one claiming the clocks too.
> > 
> > No. simplefb just wants to write to some memory that hardware has been
> > set up to scan out. The platform requires that the clocks be on. Other
> > platforms may not even allow turning off the clocks.
> 
> Like what? the rpi? Come on. Just because the videocore is some black
> box we know nothing about doesn't mean we should use it as an example.

You make it sound like the Raspberry Pi is somehow less important than
sunxi.

> Any decent enough SoC, with a decent support in the kernel will have
> clocks for this, and I really wonder how simplefb will behave once its
> clocks will be turned off...

There are other devices besides ARM SoCs that may want to use this
driver and that don't have clock support.

But you're missing my point. What I'm saying is that the simplefb driver
is meant to serve as a way to take over whatever framebuffer a firmware
set up. Therefore I think it makes the most sense to assume that nothing
needs to be controlled in any way since already been set up by firmware.
Eventually there should be a driver that takes over from simplefb that
knows how to properly handle the device's specifics, but that's not
simplefb.

The goal of this patch series is to keep clocks from being turned off.
But that's not what it does. What it does is turn clocks on to prevent
them from being turned off. In my opinion that's a workaround for a
deficiency in the kernel (and the firmware/kernel interface) and I think
it should be fixed at the root. So a much better solution would be to
establish a way for firmware to communicate to the kernel that a given
resource has been enabled by firmware and shouldn't be disabled. Such a
solution can be implement for all types of resources and can be reused
by all drivers since they don't have to worry about these details.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]