Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] rust: clk: use the type-state pattern

Maxime Ripard
2026-01-22T13:44:52Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2623 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 03:37:17PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Mon Jan 19, 2026 at 3:18 PM CET, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 02:13:48PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >> On Mon Jan 19, 2026 at 1:54 PM CET, Daniel Almeida wrote:
> >> >> On 19 Jan 2026, at 09:35, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> wrote:
> >> >> I think that if you still want an API where you just call enable/disable
> >> >> directly on it with no protection against unbalanced calls, then that
> >> >> should be the special API. Probably called RawClk and functions marked
> >> >> unsafe. Unbalanced calls seem really dangerous and use should not be
> >> >> encouraged.
> >>
> >> +1; and unless there is a use-case that requires otherwise, it should not even
> >> be possible to do this at all -- at least for driver code.
> >
> > I mean, it's great, it's safe, etc. but it's also suboptimal from a PM
> > perspective on many platforms. It's totally fine to provide nice, safe,
> > ergonomic wrappers for the drivers that don't care (or can't, really),
> > but treating a legitimate optimisation as something we should consider
> > impossible to do is just weird to me.
>
> I said that an unsafe API with potentially unbalanced calls is something we
> should clearly avoid for drivers. This is *not* equivalent to "treating a
> legitimate optimisation as something we should consider impossible".
>
> If we discover use-cases where the current API doesn't work well, we can
> invenstigate further.

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying, sorry. I've pointed out
such a use-case already.

> >> > I think we should discourage RawClk if at all possible. But if the consensus
> >> > is that we *really* need this easily-abused thing, I can provide a follow-up.
> >>
> >> I think we should only do this if there are use-case with no alternative, so far
> >> there haven't been any AFAIK.
> >
> > I don't really care about which alternative we come up with, but look at
> > devm_regmap_init_mmio_clk for example. It is a valid use-case that
> > already exists today, and has had for more than a decade at this point.
>
> I don't see the issue with devm_regmap_init_mmio_clk()? It takes a reference
> count of the clock and prepares it when called and unprepares the clk in drops
> its reference in regmap_mmio_free_context() called from the devres callback.
>
> That something we can easily do with the current API, no?

The current one, yes. Doing that in the API suggested here would involve
some boilerplate in all those drivers they don't have right now.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 273 bytes --]