[PATCH v7 2/3] clk: introduce the common clock framework

[Turquette, Mike]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 04:52:05PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> >+/*
>> >+ * calculate the new rates returning the topmost clock that has to be
>> >+ * changed.
>> >+ */
>> >+static struct clk *clk_calc_new_rates(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
>> >+{
>> >+    struct clk *top = clk;
>> >+    unsigned long best_parent_rate = clk->parent->rate;
>>
>> Shouldn't you check for a valid parent before dereferencing it? A
>> clk_set_rate() on a root clock might throw up some issues otherwise.
>>
>
> Yes, should be checked.

The clk_calc_new_rates code assumes a valid parent pointer in several
locations.  Thanks for the catch Rajendra.  Will roll into my fixes
series.

>> >+    unsigned long new_rate;
>> >+
>> >+    if (!clk->ops->round_rate&&  !(clk->flags&  CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT)) {
>> >+            clk->new_rate = clk->rate;
>> >+            return NULL;
>>
>> So does this mean a clk_set_rate() fails for a clk which does not have
>> a valid .round_rate and does not have a CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag set?
>> I was thinking this could do a..
>>               clk->new_rate = rate;
>>               top = clk;
>>               goto out;
>> ..instead.
>
> The core should make sure that either both set_rate and round_rate are
> present or none of them.

Agreed.  The documentation covers which clk_ops are hard dependencies
(based on supported operations), but the code doesn't strictly check
this.  I'll add a small state machine to __clk_init which validates
that .round_rate, .recalc_rate and .set_rate are *all* present if any
one of them are present, and present a WARN if otherwise.

Thanks,
Mike