Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add device links to clocks

Miquel Raynal
2019-07-27T08:53:38Z

Hi Stephen,

Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote on Mon, 17 Jun 2019
11:57:03 +0200:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote on Tue, 21 May 2019
> 11:46:44 +0200:
>
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote on Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:34:16
> > -0700:
> >
> > > Quoting Miquel Raynal (2019-01-08 08:19:36)
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > While working on suspend to RAM feature, I ran into troubles multiple
> > > > times when clocks where not suspending/resuming at the desired time. I
> > > > had a look at the core and I think the same logic as in the
> > > > regulator's core may be applied here to (very easily) fix this issue:
> > > > using device links.
> > > >
> > > > The only additional change I had to do was to always (when available)
> > > > populate the device entry of the core clock structure so that it could
> > > > be used later. This is the purpose of patch 1. Patch 2 actually adds
> > > > support for device links.
> > > >
> > > > Here is a step-by-step explanation of how links are managed, following
> > > > Maxime Ripard's suggestion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The order of probe has no importance because the framework already
> > > > handles orphaned clocks so let's be simple and say there are two root
> > > > clocks, not depending on anything, that are probed first: xtal0 and
> > > > xtal1. None of these clocks have a parent, there is no device link in
> > > > the game, yet.
> > > >
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | xtal0 core | | xtal1 core |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +-------^^-------+ +-------^^-------+
> > > > || ||
> > > > || ||
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | xtal0 clk | | xtal1 clk |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > >
> > > > Then, a peripheral clock periph0 is probed. His parent is xtal1. The
> > > > clock_register_*() call will run __clk_init_parent() and a link between
> > > > periph0's core and xtal1's core will be created and stored in
> > > > periph0's core->parent_clk_link entry.
> > > >
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | xtal0 core | | xtal1 core |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +-------^^-------+ +-------^^-------+
> > > > || ||
> > > > || ||
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | xtal0 clk | | xtal1 clk |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +----------------+ +-------^--------+
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > +--------------+
> > > > | ->parent_clk_link
> > > > |
> > > > +----------------+
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > | periph0 core |
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > +-------^^-------+
> > > > ||
> > > > ||
> > > > +----------------+
> > > > | |
> > > > | periph0 clk 0 |
> > > > | |
> > > > +----------------+
> > > >
> > > > Then, device0 is probed and "get" the periph0 clock. clk_get() will be
> > > > called and a struct clk will be instantiated for device0 (called in
> > > > the figure clk 1). A link between device0 and the new clk 1 instance of
> > > > periph0 will be created and stored in the clk->consumer_link entry.
> > > >
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | xtal0 core | | xtal1 core |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +-------^^-------+ +-------^^-------+
> > > > || ||
> > > > || ||
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | xtal0 clk | | xtal1 clk |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +----------------+ +-------^--------+
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > +--------------+
> > > > | ->parent_clk_link
> > > > |
> > > > +----------------+
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > | periph0 core |
> > > > | <-------------+
> > > > | <-------------|
> > > > +-------^^-------+ ||
> > > > || ||
> > > > || ||
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | periph0 clk 0 | | periph0 clk 1 |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > |
> > > > | ->consumer_link
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > +-------v--------+
> > > > | device0 |
> > > > +----------------+
> > > >
> > > > Right now, device0 is linked to periph0, itself linked to xtal1 so
> > > > everything is fine.
> > > >
> > > > Now let's get some fun: the new parent of periph0 is xtal1. The process
> > > > will call clk_reparent(), periph0's core->parent_clk_link will be
> > > > destroyed and a new link to xtal1 will be setup and stored. The
> > > > situation is now that device0 is linked to periph0 and periph0 is
> > > > linked to xtal1, so the dependency between device0 and xtal1 is still
> > > > clear.
> > > >
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | xtal0 core | | xtal1 core |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +-------^^-------+ +-------^^-------+
> > > > || ||
> > > > || ||
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | xtal0 clk | | xtal1 clk |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +-------^--------+ +----------------+
> > > > |
> > > > | \ /
> > > > +----------------------------x
> > > > ->parent_clk_link | / \
> > > > |
> > > > +----------------+
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > | periph0 core |
> > > > | <-------------+
> > > > | <-------------|
> > > > +-------^^-------+ ||
> > > > || ||
> > > > || ||
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | periph0 clk 0 | | periph0 clk 1 |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > |
> > > > | ->consumer_link
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > +-------v--------+
> > > > | device0 |
> > > > +----------------+
> > > >
> > > > I assume periph0 cannot be removed while there are devices using it,
> > > > same for xtal0.
> > > >
> > > > What can happen is that device0 'put' the clock periph0. The relevant
> > > > link is deleted and the clk instance dropped.
> > > >
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | xtal0 core | | xtal1 core |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +-------^^-------+ +-------^^-------+
> > > > || ||
> > > > || ||
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | xtal0 clk | | xtal1 clk |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +-------^--------+ +----------------+
> > > > |
> > > > | \ /
> > > > +----------------------------x
> > > > ->parent_clk_link | / \
> > > > |
> > > > +----------------+
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > | periph0 core |
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > +-------^^-------+
> > > > ||
> > > > ||
> > > > +----------------+
> > > > | |
> > > > | periph0 clk 0 |
> > > > | |
> > > > +----------------+
> > > >
> > > > Now we can unregister periph0: link with the parent will be destroyed
> > > > and the clock may be safely removed.
> > > >
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | xtal0 core | | xtal1 core |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +-------^^-------+ +-------^^-------+
> > > > || ||
> > > > || ||
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | xtal0 clk | | xtal1 clk |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > +----------------+ +----------------+
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is my understanding of the common clock framework and how links
> > > > can be added to it.
> > > >
> > > > As a result, here are the links created during the boot of an
> > > > ESPRESSObin:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry this patch series is taking way too long to get merged. It's
> > > already mid-April!
> > >
> > > So I still have some of the original questions I had from before, mostly
> > > around circular parent chains between clk providers. For example, there
> > > are clk providers that both provide clks to other providers and consume
> > > clks from those providers. Does device links work gracefully here?
> > >
> > > Just speaking from my own qcom experience, I can point to the PCIe PHY
> > > that's a provider of a clk to GCC and a consumer of a clk in GCC. In
> > > block diagram form this is:
> > >
> > >
> > > PCIE PHY GCC
> > > +--------------+ +-------------------------+
> > > | | | |
> > > | PHY clk ->----------+---- gcc_pipe_clk ---+ |
> > > | | | | |
> > > | | | | |
> > > | pci_pipe_clk <----------|---------------------+ |
> > > | | | |
> > > +--------------+ +-------------------------+
> > >
> > > The end result is that the PCIe PHY is a clk controller that provides
> > > the PHY clk to GCC's gcc_pipe_clk and then it gets the same clk signal
> > > back from GCC and uses it on the PCIe PHY's pci_pipe_clk input.
> > >
> > > So is this is a problem?
> > >
> >
> > It's now my turn to get back on this topic.
> >
> > I just put my noise back into this and for what I understand of the
> > clk subsystem, I think the situation you describe could be pictured
> > like this:
> >
> >
> > +---------------+
> > | |
> > | |
> > | PCIe PHY |
> > | |
> > | |
> > +-----^^--------+
> > ||
> > ||
> > +---------------+
> > | |
> > | pcie_pipe_clk |
> > | |
> > +------^--------+
> > |
> > | ->parent_clk_link
> > |
> > |
> > +---------------+
> > | |
> > | |
> > | GCC |
> > | |
> > | |
> > +------^^-------+
> > ||
> > ||
> > +---------------+
> > | |
> > | gcc_pipe_clk |
> > | |
> > +------^--------+
> > |
> > | ->parent_clk_link
> > |
> > |
> > +---------------+
> > | |
> > | |
> > | PCIe PHY |
> > | |
> > | |
> > +------^^-------+
> > ||
> > ||
> > +---------------+
> > | |
> > | phy_clk |
> > | |
> > +---------------+
> >
> >
> > IMHO the fact that the first and third blocks are the same does not
> > interfere with device links.
> >
> > Honestly, I cannot be 100% sure it won't break on qcom designs, maybe
> > the best would be to have someone to test. I don't have the relevant
> > hardware. Do you? It would be really helpful!
> >
> > There is an entire PCIe series blocked, waiting for these device links
> > to be merged so it would help a lot if someone could test.
> >
>
> Could you share the status of this series? Will it be applied for the
> next merge window? I would really like to see this moving forward.

I know this series might have side effects despite the consequent
amount of time spent to write and test it, but I also think the
clk subsystem would really benefit from such change and handling
suspend to RAM support would be greatly enhanced. You seemed
interested at first and now not anymore, could I know why? I got
inspired by the regulators subsystem. It is not an idea of mine
that device links should be bring to clocks. Regulators are almost
as used as clocks so I really understand your fears but why not
applying this to -next very early during the -rc cycles and see
what happens? You'll have plenty of time to ask me to fix things
or even drop it off.

Kind regards,
Miquèl