[PATCH v7 2/3] clk: introduce the common clock framework
skannan at codeaurora.org
Fri Mar 23 23:04:07 UTC 2012
On 03/23/2012 03:32 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Saravana Kannan<skannan at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 03/23/2012 02:39 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote:
>>> __clk_recalc_rates is called by __clk_reparent which is called by
>>> clk_set_parent. __clk_recalc_rates is also called by clk_set_rate.
>>> Does this not handle the old cached clk->rate for you?
>> For the set_parent case, ops->recalc_rate() is called twice. Once for
>> PRE_CHANGE and once for POST_CHANGE. For this clock, I can only really
>> recalc the rate during the POST_CHANGE call. So, how should I differentiate
>> the two cases?
> .recalc_rate serves two purposes: first it recalculates the rate after
> the rate has changed and you pass in a new parent_rate argument. The
> second purpose is to "speculate" a rate change. You can pass in any
> rate for the parent_rate parameter when you call .recalc_rates. This
> is what __speculate_rates does before the rate changes. For
> clk_set_parent we call,
> __clk_speculate_rates(clk, parent->rate);
> Where parent above is the *new* parent. So this will let us propagate
> pre-rate change notifiers with the new rate.
> Your .recalc_rate callback doesn't need to differentiate between the
> two calls to .recalc_rate. It should just take in the parent_rate
> value and do the calculation required of it.
Yeah, this is generally true. But, in this specific case, the clock is a
mux that can literally measure the real rate. I would like the rate of
this mux clock to be the real measured rate and not just the parent rate.
I could actually measure the current rate and return that for
recalc_rate(), but then the reported rate change during the pre-change
notification would be wrong. Having the "msg" will let us at least fake
the rate correctly for pre change notifiers.
>> I think it's quite useful for recalc_rate to be called pre/post change (some
>> steps have to be done pre/post change depending on whether the parent rate
>> is increasing or decreasing). But I don't see the "msg" being passed along.
> What kind of steps? Does your .recalc_rate perform these steps? I
> need more details to understand your requirements.
Nevermind, my brain isn't working today. I can just do that different
ordering in ops->set_parent(). But the measure clocks case is still true
But this did bring up another point in my head. Hopefully this one isn't
my brain playing tricks again today.
How does a child (or grand child) clock (not a driver using the clock)
reject a rate change if it know it can't handle that freq from the
parent? I won't claim to know this part of the code thoroughly, but I
can't find an easy way to do this.
Reason for rejection could be things like the counter (for division,
etc) has an upper limit on how fast it can run.
>> Also, I noticed that clk_set_parent() is treating a NULL as an invalid
>> clock. Should that be fixed? set_parent(NULL) could be treated as a
>> grounding the clock. Should we let the ops->set_parent determine if NULL is
>> valid option?
> We must be looking at different code. clk_set_parent doesn't return
> any error if parent == NULL. Bringing this to my attention does show
> that we do deref the parent pointer without a check though...
> Do you have a real use case for this? Due to the way that we match
> the parent pointer with the cached clk->parents member it would be
> painful to support NULL parents as valid.
I don't have a real use case for MSM. We just have a ground_clock.
> It is also worth considering whether clk_set_parent is really the
> correct operation for grounding a clock. clk_unprepare might be a
> better candidate.
Yeah, not a real use case for MSM.
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
More information about the linaro-dev