Re: [PATCH 08/26] power: Add iMX8M block ctrl driver for dispmix

Miquel Raynal
2024-10-01T10:01:18Z

Hi Michael,

> > >>>> Ported the patch from patchset
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "[PATCH 05/26] clk: imx8mm: Mark IMX8MM_SYS_PLL2 and IMX8MM_SYS_PLL3 as enabled"
> > >>>>
> > >>>> to imx8mp [2] and fec ethernet works again for me on imx8mp!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Could you add this if you post a v2 ?
> > >>>
> > >>> TBH I don't feel like the below change is the correct one, it is too
> > >>> specific. The clock core is recursive and thus should handle the
> > >>> reparenting situations gracefully.
> > >>>
> > >>> I posted a series that is targeting the LVDS output on imx8mp. You
> > >>> should probably consider checking these patches as well if you work
> > >>> on imx8mp as well. I also had similar breakages with Ethernet which
> > >>> happened during the assigned-clocks handling. This patch, which is more
> > >>> future and platform agnostic, fixed it:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20240910101344.110633-3-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com/
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> The clock patches are not specific at all. You need to have it working
> > >> for the parent for each component.
> > >
> > > The diff shown by Heiko is explicitly enabling PLLs by naming them in
> > > the iMX driver. This is not the correct approach. The problem of
> > > having non-enabled new parents is global. Parent clocks should be
> > > enabled before changing muxes, and this should be enforced
> > > by the clock core/uclass, not the SoC drivers.
> >
> > Okay, valid argument.
> >
> > >
> > >> This is a standard way to do it and nothing magic compared to other
> > >> implementations.
> > >
> > > No, naming PLLs explicitly is not the correct approach.
> > >
> > >> I don't see
> > >> in your series any addressing or reparent clock or take in account
> > >> that a clock should be enable before
> > >> reparenting.
> > >
> > > That's exactly the link above, whose diff is pasted here for reference:
> > >
> > > @@ -595,6 +595,10 @@ int clk_set_parent(struct clk *clk, struct clk *parent)
> > > if (!ops->set_parent)
> > > return -ENOSYS;
> > >
> > > + ret = clk_enable(parent);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> >
> > As I said before, I had *exact* the same patch and thought I made a big
> > hack :-P
> >
> > But I wonder ... if this a generic "problem", why nobody had yet problems
> > with it...
>
> I think that a generic approach that takes into account the reparent
> is more valuable, then
> this.

I'm sorry I don't fully understand your answer. I assume you agree with
the generic approach quoted above.

> If a clock is enabled by another stage and we don't aware about
> it we need to mark
> as enabled.

clk_enable() already handles this kind of situation.

> I think that this force of enable it's just a short path
> that does not solve the generic
> problem.

What "force of enable"? The parent needs to be enabled before we use it
as parent. The logic is always the same:
- clk_enable() the new parent
- change the parent
- clk_disable() the old parent
I don't see any short path here.

> I really tried to abstract what is really implemented in
> other OS on the same topic.

FYI, Linux does the clk_enable(parent) like above.

Thanks,
Miquèl