[PATCH v3 3/5] clk: introduce the common clock framework

Paul Walmsley paul at pwsan.com
Fri Dec 2 12:13:10 EST 2011

Hi Russell,

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 06:20:50PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > 1. When a clock user calls clk_enable() on a clock, the clock framework 
> > should prevent other users of the clock from changing the clock's rate.  
> > This should persist until the clock user calls clk_disable() (but see also 
> > #2 below).  This will ensure that clock users can rely on the rate 
> > returned by clk_get_rate(), as long as it's called between clk_enable() 
> > and clk_disable().  And since the clock's rate is guaranteed to remain the 
> > same during this time, code that cannot tolerate clock rate changes 
> > without special handling (such as driver code for external I/O devices) 
> > will work safely without further modification.
> So, if you have a PLL whose parent clock is not used by anything else.
> You want to program it to a certain rate.
> You call clk_disable() on the PLL clock.

The approach described wouldn't require the PLL to be disabled before 
changing its rate.  If there are no other users of the PLL, or if the 
other users of the PLL have indicated that it's safe for others to change 
the PLL's rate, the clock framework would allow the PLL rate change, even 
if the PLL is enabled.  (modulo any notifier activity, and assuming that 
the underlying PLL hardware allows its frequency to be reprogrammed while 
the PLL is enabled)

> This walks up the tree and disables the parent.  You then try to set the 
> rate using clk_set_rate(). clk_set_rate() in this circumstance can't 
> wait for the PLL to lock because it can't - there's no reference clock 
> for it.

As an aside, this seems like a good time to mention that the behavior of 
clk_set_rate() on a disabled clock needs to be clarified.

- Paul

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list