On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Thierry Reding
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 02:37:53PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:

quoted

Quoting Thierry Reding (2014-09-29 06:54:00)

quoted

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:34:36PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:44:57PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:

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.

It's actually very easy to do. Have a driver that probes, enables its
clock, fails to probe for any reason, call clk_disable in its exit
path. If there's no other user at that time of this particular clock
tree, it will be shut down. Bam. You just lost your framebuffer.

Really, it's just that simple, and relying on the fact that some other
user of the same clock tree will always be their is beyond fragile.

Perhaps the meaning clk_ignore_unused should be revised, then. What you
describe isn't at all what I'd expect from such an option. And it does
not match the description in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt either.

From e156ee56cbe26c9e8df6619dac1a993245afc1d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mike Turquette <redacted>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:24:38 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] doc/kernel-parameters.txt: clarify clk_ignore_unused

Refine the definition around clk_ignore_unused, which caused some
confusion recently on the linux-fbdev and linux-arm-kernel mailing
lists[0].

[0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<20140929135358.GC30998@ulmo>

Signed-off-by: Mike Turquette <redacted>
---
Thierry,

Please let me know if this wording makes the feature more clear.

I think that's better than before, but I don't think it's accurate yet.
As pointed out by Maxime unused clock may still be disabled if it's part
of a tree and that tree is being disabled because there are no users
left.

It is entirely accurate. This feature does in fact "prevent the clock
framework from *automatically* gating clock ...".

And it was merged by Olof so that he could use simplefb with the Chromebook!

What I had argued is that it's unexpected behavior, because the clock
is still unused (or becomes unused again), therefore shouldn't be
disabled at that point either.

Leaving clocks enabled because nobody claimed them is not an option.

So if you want to keep the current behaviour where an unused clock can
still be disabled depending on what other users do, then I think it'd be
good to mention that as a potential caveat.

Do you have a suggestion on the wording?

Thanks,
Mike

Thierry