Re: [PATCH] rtc: mpfs: Use devm_clk_get_enabled() helper

[Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>]

On 24/08/2022 13:27:02+0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 24/08/2022 à 11:58, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com a écrit :
> > Hey Christope,
> > Thanks for your patch.
> > 
> > On 24/08/2022 09:18, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > > 
> > > The devm_clk_get_enabled() helper:
> > >      - calls devm_clk_get()
> > >      - calls clk_prepare_enable() and registers what is needed in order to
> > >        call clk_disable_unprepare() when needed, as a managed resource.
> > > 
> > > This simplifies the code, the error handling paths and avoid the need of
> > > a dedicated function used with devm_add_action_or_reset().
> > > 
> > > That said, mpfs_rtc_init_clk() is the same as devm_clk_get_enabled(), so
> > > use this function directly instead.
> > 
> > Firstly, I think something is missing from the commit description here.
> > devm_clk_get_enabled() is not just a blanket "use this instead of get(),
> > prepare_enable()" & is only intended for cases where the clock would
> > be kept prepared or enabled for the whole lifetime of the driver. I think
> > it is worth pointing that out to help people who do not keep up with
> > every helper that is added.
> 
> Ok, I'll update my commit log for other similar patches or should a v2 be
> needed.
> 
> > 
> > I had a bit of a look through the documentation to see if the block would
> > keep track of time without the AHB clock enabled, but it does not seem to.
> > There is no reason to turn off the clock here (in fact it would seem
> > counter productive to disable it..) so it looks like the shoe fits in that
> > regard.
> > 
> > However...
> > 
> > > 
> > > This also fixes an (unlikely) unchecked devm_add_action_or_reset() error.
> > > 
> > > Based on my test with allyesconfig, this reduces the .o size from:
> > >      text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
> > >      5330    2208       0    7538    1d72 drivers/rtc/rtc-mpfs.o
> > > down to:
> > >      5074    2208       0    7282    1c72 drivers/rtc/rtc-mpfs.o
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
> > > ---
> > > devm_clk_get_enabled() is new and is part of 6.0-rc1
> > > ---
> > >    drivers/rtc/rtc-mpfs.c | 19 +------------------
> > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mpfs.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mpfs.c
> > > index 944ad1036516..2a479d44f198 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mpfs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mpfs.c
> > > @@ -193,23 +193,6 @@ static int mpfs_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(struct device *dev, unsigned int enabled)
> > >           return 0;
> > >    }
> > > 
> > > -static inline struct clk *mpfs_rtc_init_clk(struct device *dev)
> > > -{
> > > -       struct clk *clk;
> > > -       int ret;
> > > -
> > > -       clk = devm_clk_get(dev, "rtc");
> > > -       if (IS_ERR(clk))
> > > -               return clk;
> > > -
> > > -       ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> > > -       if (ret)
> > > -               return ERR_PTR(ret);
> > > -
> > > -       devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, (void (*) (void *))clk_disable_unprepare, clk);
> > 
> > ... this bit here concerns me a little. I don't think we should be
> > registering a callback here at all - if we power down Linux this is
> > going to end up stopping the RTC isn't it?
> > 
> > I think this is left over from the v1 driver submission that reset
> > the block during probe & should be removed.
> 
> My point is only that what is done must be undone at some point.
> 
> What if an error occurs in the probe after the clk_get("rtc")?
> Is there any point keeping it prepared and enabled?
> 
> 
> There is a .remove function in this driver, so, it looks that it is expected
> that it can be unloaded.
> 
> So undoing this clk operations via a managed resource looks the correct
> thing to do.
> 
> Just my 2c, you must know this driver and the expected behavior better than
> me.
> 

BTW, I thought you actually tested your changes on the other patch I
took, not that you were doing a blanket conversion of the subsystem.
This is the kind of info that must appear in the commit log. I would
definitively not have taken the patch.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com