[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code
From: Thierry Reding <hidden>
Date: 2014-09-29 14:00:57
Also in:
linux-fbdev
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:32:44PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Thierry, On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Thierry Reding [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
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.No they can't, as the clock/regulator/PM domain core cannot know if any of the used ones are also used by a shim driver like simplefb. Clocks and regulators may be shared. PM domains can contain multiple hardware blocks. Without more knowledge, the only safe thing is not disabling anything.
Indeed. That's a shame. In the most common case that probably won't matter all that much, given that the real driver can be expected to load within a reasonable amount of time.
quoted
quoted
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.Yes it is: if all users of a clock/regulator/PM domain are gone, it will be disabled. Bad luck for simplefb still needing them.
Hmm... if all users are gone, then aren't the resources unused again and should therefore be ignored? 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/acf79846/attachment.sig>