On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:56:31 +0000, Jolly Shah wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Tretter <m.tretter@pengutronix.de>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 1:39 AM
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-clk@vger.kernel.org;
kernel@pengutronix.de; Michael Turquette [off-list ref];
Michal Simek [off-list ref]; Jolly Shah [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] clk: zynqmp: fix check for fractional clock

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:24:04 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:  

quoted

Quoting Michael Tretter (2019-03-12 10:25:46)  

quoted

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:49:21 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:  

quoted

Quoting Michael Tretter (2019-03-12 04:00:12)  

quoted

CLK_FRAC is not set in the divider->flags, but in the hw->flags.

The firmware sets CLK_FRAC for fractional clocks in the clkflag field.
When registering the devider, these clkflags are copied to hw->flags.

Moreover, divider->flags field is a u8 type, but CLK_FRAG is BIT(13). So
this check would never work.

Signed-off-by: Michael Tretter <m.tretter@pengutronix.de>
---
 drivers/clk/zynqmp/divider.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/zynqmp/divider.c b/drivers/clk/zynqmp/divider.c
index a371c66e72ef..fc70950c1e24 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/zynqmp/divider.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/zynqmp/divider.c

@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static long  

zynqmp_clk_divider_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,  

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

        bestdiv = zynqmp_divider_get_val(*prate, rate);

        if ((clk_hw_get_flags(hw) & CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT) &&
-           (divider->flags & CLK_FRAC))
+           (clk_hw_get_flags(hw) & CLK_FRAC))  

CLK_FRAC shouldn't be set in the struct clk_hw::core::flags field. It's
not a clk framework flag so it shouldn't go there. Please fix the user
of this flag to place the CLK_FRAC flag somewhere else. Even adding it
into divider::flags is not a good idea because that numberspace is for
dividers, and this flag seems to be zynqmp driver specific, so maybe
just add a bool to the zynqmp_clk_divider?
 

Thanks. The driver sets the clk_hw::core::flags based on a response
from the ATF and this response includes this flag with other clk
frameworks flags. I can test for the flag when registering the clock
and set another flag or a bool for the zynqmp_clk_divider and will do
so in v2.  

Cool. Thanks!
 

quoted

However, this merely sounds like a workaround for an issue in the ATF,
which should not define and use this flag in the first place.
 

What is ATF doing with these flags? Hopefully ATF and the Linux kernel
aren't using the same numberspace to describe these things. For example,
I would be concerned if ATF was looking at the CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag
and passing that value from firmware to the kernel, blindly assuming
that the kernel wouldn't change those numbers to be something else.
Obviously that type of kernel change would be invasive but it's not an
ABI that we've ever published so we're free to do these sorts of things.  

You mean that the ATF defines macros like

	#define CLK_SET_RATE_GATE       BIT(0) /* must be gated across rate
change */
	#define CLK_SET_PARENT_GATE     BIT(1) /* must be gated across re-
parent */
	#define CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT     BIT(2) /* propagate rate change up
one level */

in plat/xilinx/zynqmp/pm_service/pm_api_clock.h, sets the flags in the
response to the Linux driver, and the Linux driver copies the flags
that it got from the ATF to clk_hw::core::flags like

	init.flags = nodes->flag;

where nodes is the response from the ATF? That's exactly what is happening.

So instead of only translating CLK_FRAC, the driver should actually
translate all flags in the ATF response to proper clk framework flags
instead of blindly copying them, right?  

Except CLK_FRAC, all flags are defined same as clk framework. I think
we should add custom flags field and pass zynqmp specific flags there.

Using the same flags in the ATF and the common clk framework works now,
because they have the same value. However, the flags are not actually
the same, because the flags that the driver gets from the ATF are
defined in the ATF and the flags that the driver passes to the common
clk framework are defined in the common clk framework. If the flags in
the common clk framework are changed (which is admittedly unlikely), the
ZynqMP clock driver will break, because it still assumes that the
common clk framework uses the same flags as defined in the ATF.

Therefore, the driver should actually decouple the flags by defining
its own flags that correspond to the flags as defined by the ATF (i.e.
platform specific flags) and convert these flags into flags for the
common clk framework when registering the clocks.

The problem is that two things that have the same value are not
necessarily the same thing.

Michael

Thanks,
Jolly Shah

quoted

Michael  

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel