On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 05:51:48PM -0700, Turquette, Mike wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Sascha Hauer s.hauer@pengutronix.de wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 08:16:36PM -0700, Turquette, Mike wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Sascha Hauer s.hauer@pengutronix.de wrote:
I tried another approach on the weekend which basically does not try to do all in a single recursion but instead sets the rate in multiple steps:
- call a function which calculates all new rates of affected clocks
in a rate change and safes the value in a clk->new_rate field. This function returns the topmost clock which has to be changed. 2) starting from the topmost clock notify all clients. This walks the whole subtree even if a notfifier refuses the change. If necessary we can walk the whole subtree again to abort the change. 3) actually change rates starting from the topmost clocks and notify all clients on the way. I changed the set_rate callback to void. Instead of failing (what is failing in case of set_rate? The clock will still have some rate) I check for the result with clk_ops->recalc_rate.
The way described above works for me now, see this branch:
git://git.pengutronix.de/git/imx/linux-2.6.git v3.3-rc6-clkv6-fixup
You may not necessarily like it as it changes quite a lot in the rate changing code.
I tried that code and I really like it! It is much more readable and feels less "fragile" than the previous recursive __clk_set_rate. I did quite a bit of testing with this code today. One of the tests looks like this:
pll (adjustable to anything) |clk_divider (5 bits wide) | dummy (no clk_ops)
The new code did a fine job arbitrating rates for the PLL and the intermediate divider even if I put weird constraints on the PLL. For instance if I artificially limited it to a minimum of 600MHz and then ran clk_set_rate(dummy, 300MHz) it would lock at 600MHz and set clk_divider to divide-by-2. Setting to 600MHz or more set the divider back to 1 and relocked the PLL appropriately. Pretty cool.
I also tested the notifiers with this code and they seem to function properly. I'll take this code in for v7. Thanks a lot for this helpful contribution.
I did find that MULT_ROUND_UP caused trouble for my PLL's round_rate implementation. Maybe my PLL code is fragile but a quick fix was to make sure that we send the exact value we want to the round_rate code. I also feel this is more correct. Let me know what you think:
8<---------------------------------------------------------------
commit 189fecedb175d0366759246c4192f45b0bc39a50 Author: Mike Turquette mturquette@linaro.org Date: Wed Mar 14 17:29:51 2012 -0700
clk-divider.c: round the actual rate we care aboutdiff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-divider.c b/drivers/clk/clk-divider.c index 86ca9cd..06ef4a0 100644 --- a/drivers/clk/clk-divider.c +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-divider.c @@ -47,12 +47,6 @@ static unsigned long clk_divider_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_divider_recalc_rate);
-/*
- The reverse of DIV_ROUND_UP: The maximum number which
- divided by m is r
- */
-#define MULT_ROUND_UP(r, m) ((r) * (m) + (m) - 1)
static int clk_divider_bestdiv(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, unsigned long *best_parent_rate) { @@ -84,9 +78,9 @@ static int clk_divider_bestdiv(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
for (i = 1; i <= maxdiv; i++) { parent_rate = __clk_round_rate(__clk_get_parent(hw->clk),
MULT_ROUND_UP(rate, i));
(rate * i));
I think MULT_ROUND_UP is the right thing to use here (not sure if this is a good name though) Consider we want to have an output rate of 33Hz. Now acceptable input rates for a divider value of 3 would be 99, 100 and 101Hz, so we have to call round_rate for the parent with 101Hz which includes 100 and 99Hz.
If you have problems with your PLL than most likely because it does something different on clk_round_rate than it does in clk_set_rate, for example clk_round_rate(10000) returns 10000, but clk_set_rate then sets the rate 9999 due to some rounding error. Being consistent between round_rate and set_rate is very important for this mechanism to work properly. It did cost me some nerves to get it right for the divider (and even more nerves to figure out why it is correct the way it works)
now = parent_rate / i;
if (now <= rate && now >= best) {
if (now <= rate && now > best) {
This change is an optimization, but should be unrelated to your PLL problem, right?
Sascha