Thread (269 messages) 269 messages, 18 authors, 2014-11-11

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code

From: Thierry Reding <hidden>
Date: 2014-09-29 10:44:57
Also in: linux-fbdev

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:35:17PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Thierry,

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Thierry Reding
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
How is that less generic?
It's more generic. That's the whole point.

The difference is that with the solution I proposed we don't have to
keep track of all the resources. We know that firmware has set them up
and we know that a real driver will properly take them over at some
point, so duplicating what the real driver does within the simplefb
driver is just that, duplication. We don't allow duplication anywhere
else in the kernel, why should simplefb be an exception?
quoted
You know that you are going to call that for regulator, reset, power
domains, just as you would have needed to with the proper API, unless
that with this kind of solution, you would have to modify *every*
framework that might interact with any resource involved in getting
simplefb running?
We have to add handling for every kind of resource either way. Also if
this evolves into a common pattern we can easily wrap it up in a single
function call.
disable_all_power_management(), as this is not limited to clocks.
Right. But it isn't all power management either. It just shouldn't turn
everything unused off. Clocks, regulators, power domains and so on which
are used can very well be power managed.
quoted
quoted
Plus, speaking more specifically about the clocks, that won't prevent
your clock to be shut down as a side effect of a later clk_disable
call from another driver.
quoted
Furthermore isn't it a bug for a driver to call clk_disable() before a
preceding clk_enable()? There are patches being worked on that will
enable per-user clocks and as I understand it they will specifically
disallow drivers to disable the hardware clock if other drivers are
still keeping them on via their own referenc.
Calling clk_disable() preceding clk_enable() is a bug.

Calling clk_disable() after clk_enable() will disable the clock (and
its parents)
if the clock subsystem thinks there are no other users, which is what will
happen here.
Right. I'm not sure this is really applicable to this situation, though.
Either way, if there are other users of a clock then they will just as
likely want to modify the rate at which point simplefb will break just
as badly.

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140929/6eb50a02/attachment.sig>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help