[PATCH v4] GPIO PL061: Adding Clk framework support
viresh.kumar at st.com
Thu Jul 15 05:35:52 EDT 2010
On 7/15/2010 2:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:32:19AM +0530, Viresh KUMAR wrote:
>> These cases particularly in our architecture where functional and
>> interface clock are tied together (through same gating option) would
>> produce difficult scenarios (as already mentioned by you) and which
>> would be difficult and not so clean to handle.
> I don't see the problem.
> What I'm proposing means:
> 1. when the driver probe function is called, pclk is guaranteed to be
> enabled, and therefore device registers are guaranteed to be accessible.
> This clock will then stay enabled all the time the device is bound to
> the driver unless the driver wants to request that it is disabled.
> 2. if the driver wants to do something with its functional clock, it
> clk_get() that, and does the standard enable/disable on it at the
> appropriate time.
> So, if pclk and the functional clock are bound together, then at probe
> time the 'pclk' is obtained and enabled, which sets your enable bit and
> increases the clk use count to 1.
> When the driver gets its functional clock, which happens to be the same
> as clk structure as 'pclk', calling clk_enable() increases the use count
> to 2, but doesn't touch the register because the clock is already enabled.
> If the driver subsequently calls clk_disable(), this decreases the use
> count to 1, and because there's still one user, the clock isn't disabled.
> Only if the driver wants both its pclk and functional clock disabled will
> your enable bit be reset.
> So, provided a driver participating in pclk control (by disabling it in
> its probe function) always re-enables pclk before it accesses the device
> then the pclk control is completely transparent - whether or not it's
> tied to the functional clock.
> If a driver isn't participating in pclk control, it continues to work as
> is with no alterations - because we guarantee that pclk will be enabled
> to the device whenever the driver is bound to the device.
> This allows us to incrementally add pclk control to each primecell driver.
>> For example just looking at driver src which disables bus clock (without
>> enabling it) in different scenarios would not be very readable.
>> Further that would vary from architecture to architecture (even for
>> standard drivers).
> How so?
>>> You can't have the core code doing that. If you unconditionally turn
>>> the bus clock off after probe, what happens when a driver receives an
>>> interrupt and tries to access its registers?
>>> Hint: the core code can't know that the driver has registered an IRQ
>> We haven't seen this kind of issues in our devices, SPEAr as well as
>> U300 (as we have both clocks controlled by same bit). Normally, when
>> device is not in use then interrupts are disabled. When device is
>> used then interrupts and clock are enabled and clocks are not disabled
>> till the time work is finished. So, this condition might not occur that
>> you have landed in interrupt handler with clocks off.
> So what happens with the PL011 driver which accesses the device with
> the primecell UARTCLK disabled? Eg, when reading the procfs file in
> /proc/tty/driver/ ?
> What about the SPI primecell, which only enables its functional clock
> when its really required? It accesses device registers without the
> functional clock enabled?
> Basically, we do not guarantee that drivers will have their functional
> clock enabled prior to accessing their registers.
I got it!!!
Just a little issue, in your patch you were enabling interface clock in
amba_probe which is called after reading peripheral id registers in
amba_device_register. We need interface clock enabled before reading these
More information about the linux-arm-kernel