[RFC,PATCH 1/3] Add a common struct clk
From: Saravana Kannan <hidden>
Date: 2011-02-10 05:16:13
Also in:
linux-sh, lkml
On 02/08/2011 10:41 PM, Jeremy Kerr wrote: [snip]
+
+int clk_set_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
+{Shouldn't you be grabbing the prepare_lock here? Set rate and prepare/unprepare would be working on the same shared resource (say, PLL). That was the reason we are making set_rate() sleepable too. As a nice side effect, it will also enforce the "might sleep" nature of this API. You should probably rename the lock to something else since it's not limited to prepare/unprepare. How about resource_lock?
+ if (clk->ops->set_rate)
+ return clk->ops->set_rate(clk, rate);
+ return -ENOSYS;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_set_rate);
+
+int clk_set_parent(struct clk *clk, struct clk *parent)
+{
+ if (clk->ops->set_parent)
+ return clk->ops->set_parent(clk, parent);I'm not sure on this one. If the prepare ops for a clock also calls the prepare ops on the parent, shouldn't we prevent changing the parent while the prepare/unprepare is going on?
+ return -ENOSYS; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_set_parent); +
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/include/linux/clk.h b/include/linux/clk.h index 1d37f42..fe806b7 100644 --- a/include/linux/clk.h +++ b/include/linux/clk.h@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
[snip]
+
+/* static initialiser for clocks */
+#define INIT_CLK(name, o) { \
+ .ops =&o, \
+ .enable_count = 0, \
+ .prepare_count = 0, \Do we need these inits? Doesn't check patch complain about initing static/global to 0? If it's generally frowned upon, why the exception here. I realize that checkpatch won't catch this, but still...
+ .enable_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.enable_lock), \ + .prepare_lock = __MUTEX_INITIALIZER(name.prepare_lock), \
After a long day, I'm not able to wrap my head around this. Probably a stupid question, but will this name.xxx thing prevent using this INIT_CLK macro to initialize an array of clocks? More specifically, prevent the sub class macro (like INIT_CLK_FIXED) from being used to initialize an array of clocks?
+} + +/** + * struct clk_ops - Callback operations for clocks; these are to be provided + * by the clock implementation, and will be called by drivers through the clk_* + * API. + * + * @prepare: Prepare the clock for enabling. This must not return until + * the clock is fully prepared, and it's safe to call clk_enable. + * This callback is intended to allow clock implementations to + * do any initialisation that may block. Called with + * clk->prepare_lock held. + * + * @unprepare: Release the clock from its prepared state. This will typically + * undo any work done in the @prepare callback. Called with + * clk->prepare_lock held. + * + * @enable: Enable the clock atomically. This must not return until the + * clock is generating a valid clock signal, usable by consumer + * devices. Called with clk->enable_lock held. This function + * must not sleep. + * + * @disable: Disable the clock atomically. Called with clk->enable_lock held. + * This function must not sleep. + * + * @get: Called by the core clock code when a device driver acquires a + * clock via clk_get(). Optional. + * + * @put: Called by the core clock code when a devices driver releases a + * clock via clk_put(). Optional. + * + * The clk_enable/clk_disable and clk_prepare/clk_unprepare pairs allow + * implementations to split any work between atomic (enable) and sleepable + * (prepare) contexts. If a clock requires blocking code to be turned on, this
Aren't all locks blocking? Shouldn't it be, "If turning on a clock requires code that might sleep, it should be done in clk_prepare"? Replace all "blocking" with "sleepable" or "sleeping" in the comments?
+ * should be done in clk_prepare. Switching that will not block should be done + * in clk_enable. + * + * Typically, drivers will call clk_prepare when a clock may be needed later + * (eg. when a device is opened), and clk_enable when the clock is actually + * required (eg. from an interrupt). Note that clk_prepare *must* have been + * called before clk_enable. + * + * For other callbacks, see the corresponding clk_* functions. Parameters and + * return values are passed directly from/to these API functions, or + * -ENOSYS (or zero, in the case of clk_get_rate) is returned if the callback + * is NULL, see kernel/clk.c for implementation details. All are optional.
is NULL. See kernel... ?
+ */
+struct clk_ops {
+ int (*prepare)(struct clk *);
+ void (*unprepare)(struct clk *);
+ int (*enable)(struct clk *);
+ void (*disable)(struct clk *);
+ int (*get)(struct clk *);
+ void (*put)(struct clk *);
+ unsigned long (*get_rate)(struct clk *);
+ long (*round_rate)(struct clk *, unsigned long);
+ int (*set_rate)(struct clk *, unsigned long);
+ int (*set_parent)(struct clk *, struct clk *);
+ struct clk * (*get_parent)(struct clk *);
+};
+Thanks, Saravana -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.