Re: [PATCH v7 3/5] clk: Supply the critical clock {init, enable, disable} framework

From: Michael Turquette
Date: Wed Jul 29 2015 - 21:02:57 EST


Hi Lee,

+ linux-clk ml

Quoting Lee Jones (2015-07-22 06:04:13)
> These new API calls will firstly provide a mechanisms to tag a clock as
> critical and secondly allow any knowledgeable driver to (un)gate clocks,
> even if they are marked as critical.
>
> Suggested-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/clk/clk.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/clk-provider.h | 2 ++
> include/linux/clk.h | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> index 61c3fc5..486b1da 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,21 @@ static struct clk_core *clk_core_lookup(const char *name);
>
> /*** private data structures ***/
>
> +/**
> + * struct critical - Provides 'play' over critical clocks. A clock can be
> + * marked as critical, meaning that it should not be
> + * disabled. However, if a driver which is aware of the
> + * critical behaviour wants to control it, it can do so
> + * using clk_enable_critical() and clk_disable_critical().
> + *
> + * @enabled Is clock critical? Once set, doesn't change
> + * @leave_on Self explanatory. Can be disabled by knowledgeable drivers

Not self explanatory. I need this explained to me. What does leave_on
do? Better yet, what would happen if leave_on did not exist?

> + */
> +struct critical {
> + bool enabled;
> + bool leave_on;
> +};
> +
> struct clk_core {
> const char *name;
> const struct clk_ops *ops;
> @@ -75,6 +90,7 @@ struct clk_core {
> struct dentry *dentry;
> #endif
> struct kref ref;
> + struct critical critical;
> };
>
> struct clk {
> @@ -995,6 +1011,10 @@ static void clk_core_disable(struct clk_core *clk)
> if (WARN_ON(clk->enable_count == 0))
> return;
>
> + /* Refuse to turn off a critical clock */
> + if (clk->enable_count == 1 && clk->critical.leave_on)
> + return;

How do we get to this point? clk_enable_critical actually calls
clk_enable, thus incrementing the enable_count. The only time that we
could hit the above case is if,

a) there is an imbalance in clk_enable and clk_disable calls. If this is
the case then the drivers need to be fixed. Or better yet some
infrastructure to catch that, now that we have per-user struct clk
cookies.

b) a driver knowingly calls clk_enable_critical(foo) and then regular,
old clk_disable(foo). But why would a driver do that?

It might be that I am missing the point here, so please feel free to
clue me in.

Regards,
Mike

> +
> if (--clk->enable_count > 0)
> return;
>
> @@ -1037,6 +1057,13 @@ void clk_disable(struct clk *clk)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_disable);
>
> +void clk_disable_critical(struct clk *clk)
> +{
> + clk->core->critical.leave_on = false;
> + clk_disable(clk);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_disable_critical);
> +
> static int clk_core_enable(struct clk_core *clk)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> @@ -1100,6 +1127,15 @@ int clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_enable);
>
> +int clk_enable_critical(struct clk *clk)
> +{
> + if (clk->core->critical.enabled)
> + clk->core->critical.leave_on = true;
> +
> + return clk_enable(clk);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_enable_critical);
> +
> static unsigned long clk_core_round_rate_nolock(struct clk_core *clk,
> unsigned long rate,
> unsigned long min_rate,
> @@ -2482,6 +2518,15 @@ fail_out:
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_register);
>
> +void clk_init_critical(struct clk *clk)
> +{
> + struct critical *critical = &clk->core->critical;
> +
> + critical->enabled = true;
> + critical->leave_on = true;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_init_critical);
> +
> /*
> * Free memory allocated for a clock.
> * Caller must hold prepare_lock.
> diff --git a/include/linux/clk-provider.h b/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> index 5591ea7..15ef8c9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> @@ -563,6 +563,8 @@ struct clk *devm_clk_register(struct device *dev, struct clk_hw *hw);
> void clk_unregister(struct clk *clk);
> void devm_clk_unregister(struct device *dev, struct clk *clk);
>
> +void clk_init_critical(struct clk *clk);
> +
> /* helper functions */
> const char *__clk_get_name(struct clk *clk);
> struct clk_hw *__clk_get_hw(struct clk *clk);
> diff --git a/include/linux/clk.h b/include/linux/clk.h
> index 8381bbf..9807f3b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/clk.h
> +++ b/include/linux/clk.h
> @@ -231,6 +231,19 @@ struct clk *devm_clk_get(struct device *dev, const char *id);
> int clk_enable(struct clk *clk);
>
> /**
> + * clk_enable_critical - inform the system when the clock source should be
> + * running, even if clock is critical.
> + * @clk: clock source
> + *
> + * If the clock can not be enabled/disabled, this should return success.
> + *
> + * May be called from atomic contexts.
> + *
> + * Returns success (0) or negative errno.
> + */
> +int clk_enable_critical(struct clk *clk);
> +
> +/**
> * clk_disable - inform the system when the clock source is no longer required.
> * @clk: clock source
> *
> @@ -247,6 +260,23 @@ int clk_enable(struct clk *clk);
> void clk_disable(struct clk *clk);
>
> /**
> + * clk_disable_critical - inform the system when the clock source is no
> + * longer required, even if clock is critical.
> + * @clk: clock source
> + *
> + * Inform the system that a clock source is no longer required by
> + * a driver and may be shut down.
> + *
> + * May be called from atomic contexts.
> + *
> + * Implementation detail: if the clock source is shared between
> + * multiple drivers, clk_enable_critical() calls must be balanced
> + * by the same number of clk_disable_critical() calls for the clock
> + * source to be disabled.
> + */
> +void clk_disable_critical(struct clk *clk);
> +
> +/**
> * clk_get_rate - obtain the current clock rate (in Hz) for a clock source.
> * This is only valid once the clock source has been enabled.
> * @clk: clock source
> --
> 1.9.1
>
--
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/