On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Andrew Lunn andrew@lunn.ch wrote:
I think i can wrap your simple gate clock, to make my "complex" gate clock. What would help is if you would EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL clk_gate_enable() and clk_gate_disable(), since they do exactly what i want. I can then build my own clk_ops structure, with my own unprepare() function. I would probably use DEFINE_CLK_GATE as is, and then at run time, before calling __clk_init() overwrite the .ops with my own version.
Maybe I don't get your point, but clk_unprepare should be used when you have to sleep to disable your clock. When clk_gate_disable() is exactly why do you want to use clk_unprepare instead of clk_disable?
I'm trying to avoid having to implement a new clock provider. The whole point of the generic clk code is to consolidate code. It seems silly to create a new clk provider which is 95% identical to Mike's gated provider, if i can avoid it.
I will export the operations in my next patchset, but I'm concerned over how useful this might be...
Using your example of struct clk_gate, both clk_gate_enable and clk_gate_disable call to_clk_gate. So you would either have to re-use struct clk_gate for your own needs (which involves hacking up a specific struct clk_gate_foo_ops for your needs) or you could not use struct clk_gate and pack your data identically (struct clk_hw must be the first member) which is too horrible to imagine.
Hmm, or you could re-use struct clk_gate but provide your own struct clk_ops AND your own registration functions (since you won't be able to pass in the ops to your clk_register_gate). So that sounds sane, if a bit convoluted. It does re-use code though...
Regards, Mike
If i stuff it into clk_disable(), it means i cannot use the basic gate clock Mike provides in the generic clock framework. Which is a shame, since it does exactly what i want in terms of gating the clock.
If i can use unprepare(), which basic gate does not use, i can use Mikes code, and just extend it. It is there, it is unused, so why not use it?
Andrew