Re: Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare

[Jassi Brar]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:04:03PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > int clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
>> > {
>> > Â Â Â Âunsigned long flags;
>> > Â Â Â Âint ret = 0;
>> >
>> > Â Â Â Âif (clk) {
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âif (WARN_ON(!clk->prepare_count))
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âreturn -EINVAL;
>> >
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âspin_lock_irqsave(&clk->lock, flags);
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âif (clk->enable_count++ == 0)
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âret = clk->ops->enable(clk);
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âspin_unlock_irqrestore(&clk->lock, flags);
>> > Â Â Â Â}
>> > Â Â Â Âreturn ret;
>> > }
>> >
>> > is entirely sufficient to catch the case of a single-use clock not being
>> > prepared before clk_enable() is called.
>> >
>> > We're after detecting drivers missing calls to clk_prepare(), we're not
>> > after detecting concurrent calls to clk_prepare()/clk_unprepare().
>>
>> I hope you mean 'making sure the clock is prepared before it's enabled
>> ' rather than
>> 'catching a driver that doesn't do clk_prepare before clk_enable'.
>> Because, the above implementation still doesn't catch a driver that
>> doesn't call clk_prepare
>> but simply uses a clock that happens to have been already prepare'd by
>> some other
>> driver or the platform.
>
> No, I mean what I said.
Then, how does that function catch a driver that, say, doesn't do clk_prepare
but share the clk with another already active driver?
Because you said - "We're after detecting drivers missing calls to
clk_prepare()"

The point is, there is difference between detecting drivers that miss
the clk_prepare
and ensuring clk_prepare has been called before any call to
clk_enable. And making
that clear helps get rid of lots of confusion/misunderstanding. Uwe
seems to have
had similar confusions.


> The only way to do what you're asking is to attach a list of identifiers
> which have prepared a clock to the struct clk, where each identifier is
> unique to each driver instance.
I am not asking what you think.
In my second last post, I am rather asking the other way around - that
let us not worry
about drivers missing the clk_prepare and not try to catch those by the new API.


> I think that's going completely over the top, and adds needless complexity
> to drivers, which now have to pass an instance specific cookie into every
> clk API call.
Exactly.
All we need is to ensure clk_prepare has been called atleast once before
any call to clk_enable.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/