[PATCH v7 7/8] clk: per-user clock accounting for debug
From: Mike Turquette <hidden>
Date: 2014-08-27 20:54:10
Quoting Tomeu Vizoso (2014-08-18 08:30:32)
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -936,10 +939,25 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_provider_disable); */ void clk_disable(struct clk *clk_user) { + struct clk_core *clk; + unsigned long flags; + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(clk_user)) return; - clk_provider_disable(clk_to_clk_core(clk_user)); + clk = clk_to_clk_core(clk_user); + + flags = clk_enable_lock(); + if (!WARN(clk_user->enable_count == 0, + "incorrect disable clk dev %s con %s last disabler %pF\n", + clk_user->dev_id, clk_user->con_id, clk_user->last_disable)) { + + clk_user->last_disable = __builtin_return_address(0); + clk_user->enable_count--; + + __clk_disable(clk); + } + clk_enable_unlock(flags); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_disable);@@ -1000,10 +1018,22 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_provider_enable); */ int clk_enable(struct clk *clk_user) { + struct clk_core *clk; + unsigned long flags; + int ret; + if (!clk_user) return 0; - return clk_provider_enable(clk_to_clk_core(clk_user)); + clk = clk_to_clk_core(clk_user); + + flags = clk_enable_lock(); + ret = __clk_enable(clk); + if (!ret) + clk_user->enable_count++; + clk_enable_unlock(flags); + + return ret; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_enable);
While we're at it, why not do per-using accounting for clk_{un}prepare?
Regards,
Mike