Inconsistency in clk framework
Tony Prisk
linux at prisktech.co.nz
Wed Dec 19 23:13:37 EST 2012
On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 19:08 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:00:49AM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 06:34 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 09:26 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 05:10:33PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > >
> > > > > In attempting to remove some IS_ERR_OR_NULL references, it was pointed
> > > > > out that clk_get() can return NULL if CONFIG_HAVE_CLK is not defined.
> > > >
> > > > That is correct - but why is that a problem? As far as users are
> > > > concerned, NULL is a valid clock. If HAVE_CLK is undefined, do you
> > > > want all your drivers to suddenly stop working?
> > >
> > > That will be where the misunderstanding has occurred - I didn't consider
> > > NULL to be a valid clock.
> > >
> > > Given that NULL is a valid clock, I guess all tests against get_clk and
> > > of_get_clk results should be IS_ERR_OR_NULL. Correct?
> > >
> > For the sake of clarity, I should rephrase:
> >
> > If the driver can't operate with a NULL clk, it should use a
> > IS_ERR_OR_NULL test to test for failure, rather than IS_ERR.
>
> Why should a _consumer_ of a clock care? It is _very_ important that
> people get this idea - to a consumer, the struct clk is just an opaque
> cookie. The fact that it appears to be a pointer does _not_ mean that
> the driver can do any kind of dereferencing on that pointer - it should
> never do so.
As a simple example:
We have a PWM module that requires a clock source to be enabled before
registers can be read/written.
*pseudo code*
x = clk_get("pwm_clock")
if IS_ERR(x) then fail
err = clk_enable(x)
if (err != 0) then fail
start writing to module registers
Assuming HAVE_CLK is undefined:
x = clk_get("pwm_clock") (= NULL)
if IS_ERR(x) then fail (not an error)
err = clk_enable(x) (= 0)
if (err) then fail (not an error)
start writing to module registers
(register writes lock the bus because the clock wasn't really enabled,
but no errors occurred enabling the clock)
I apologise if it seems like I am not getting it, but I would like to
understand this properly to avoid further problems later.
Regards
Tony P
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list