[PATCH v3 3/5] clk: introduce the common clock framework
u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de
Fri Dec 2 15:32:03 EST 2011
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:23:06PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 10:13:10AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > 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.
> It's more complicated than that. Clocks have more states than just
> enabled and disabled.
> There is:
> - unprepared
> - prepared and disabled
> - prepared and enabled
> Implementations can chose at which point to enable their PLLs and wait
> for them to lock - but if they want to sleep while waiting, they must
> do this in the prepare method, not the enable method (remember, enable
> is to be callable from atomic contexts.)
> So, it's entirely possible that a prepared clock will have the PLLs up
> and running, which means that clk_set_rate() can also wait for the PLL
> to stablize (which would be a good idea.)
> Now... we can say that PLLs should be locked when the prepare method
> returns, or whenever clk_set_rate() returns. The problem with that is
> there's a race condition between clk_enable() and clk_set_rate() - if
> we allow clk_set_rate() to sleep waiting for the PLL to lock, a
> concurrent clk_enable() can't be prevented from returning because
> that would involve holding a spinlock...
But you can achieve that the concurrent clk_enable fails. Would that be
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
More information about the linux-arm-kernel