[RFC PATCH 2/5] clk: Introduce 'clk_round_rate_nearest()'

[Sören Brinkmann]

On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 08:20PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Sören,
> 
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:03:00AM -0700, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 01:33PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > > Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2014-05-21 11:23:08)
> > > > Hello Sören,
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 08:58:10AM -0700, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 09:34AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 02:48:20PM -0700, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 10:48AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 05/20/14 09:01, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>>> +{
> > > > > > > > >>>>> + unsigned long lower, upper, cur, lower_last, upper_last;
> > > > > > > > >>>>> +
> > > > > > > > >>>>> + lower = clk_round_rate(clk, rate);
> > > > > > > > >>>>> + if (lower >= rate)
> > > > > > > > >>>>> +         return lower;
> > > > > > > > >>>> Is the >-case worth a warning?
> > > > > > > > >>> No, it's correct behavior. If you request a rate that is way lower than what the
> > > > > > > > >>> clock can generate, returning something larger is perfectly valid, IMHO.
> > > > > > > > >>> Which reveals one problem in this whole discussion. The API does not
> > > > > > > > >>> require clk_round_rate() to round down. It is actually an implementation
> > > > > > > > >>> choice that had been made for clk-divider.
> > > > > > > > >> I'm sure it's more than an implementation choice for clk-divider. But I
> > > > > > > > >> don't find any respective documentation (but I didn't try hard).
> > > > > > > > > A similar discussion - without final conclusion:
> > > > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/14/260
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Please call this new API something like clk_find_nearest_rate() or
> > > > > > > > something. clk_round_rate() is supposed to return the rate that will be
> > > > > > > > set if you call clk_set_rate() with the same arguments. It's up to the
> > > > > > > > implementation to decide if that means rounding the rate up or down or
> > > > > > > > to the nearest value.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sounds good to me. Are there any cases of clocks that round up? I think
> > > > > > > that case would not be handled correctly. But I also don't see a use
> > > > > > > case for such an implementation.
> > > > > > I don't really care which semantic (i.e. round up, round down or round
> > > > > > closest) is picked, but I'd vote that all should pick up the same. I
> > > > > > think the least surprising definition is to choose rounding down and add
> > > > > > the function that is under discussion here to get a nearest match.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So I suggest:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     - if round_rate is given a rate that is smaller than the
> > > > > >       smallest available rate, return 0
> > > > > >     - add WARN_ONCE to round_rate and set_rate if they return with a
> > > > > >       rate bigger than requested
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why do you think 0 is always valid? I think for a clock that can
> > > > > generate 40, 70, 120, clk_round_rate(20) should return 40.
> > > > I didn't say it's a valid value. It just makes the it possible to check
> > > > for clk_round_rate(clk, rate) <= rate.
> > > > 
> > > > I grepped a bit around and found da850_round_armrate which implements a
> > > > round_rate callback returning the best match.
> > > > omap1_clk_round_rate_ckctl_arm can return a value < 0.
> > > > s3c2412_roundrate_usbsrc can return values that are bigger than
> > > > requested. (I wonder if that is a bug though.)
> > > > 
> > > > > >     - change the return values to unsigned long
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yep, I agree, this should happen.
> > > > And we're using 0 as error value? e.g. for the case where
> > > > omap1_clk_round_rate_ckctl_arm returns -EIO now?
> > > 
> > > No. clk_round_rate returns long for a reason, which is that we can
> > > provide an error code to the caller. From include/linux/clk.h:
> > > 
> > > /**
> > >  * clk_round_rate - adjust a rate to the exact rate a clock can provide
> > >  * @clk: clock source
> > >  * @rate: desired clock rate in Hz
> > >  *
> > >  * Returns rounded clock rate in Hz, or negative errno.
> > >  */
> > > 
> > > This has the unfortunate side effect that the max value we can return
> > > safely is 2147483647 (~2GHz). So another issue here is converting clock
> > > rates to 64-bit values.
> > 
> > So, let's assume
> >  - a clock does either of these
> >    - round down
> >    - round nearest
> >    - round up (is there any such case? I don't see a use-case for this)
> >  - or return an error
> > 
> > I think my latest try handles such cases, with the limitation of
> > for a clock that rounds up, the up-rounded value is found instead of the
> > nearest.
> > 
> > 
> > static long clk_find_nearest_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
> > {
> > 	long ret;
> > 	unsigned long lower, upper;
> > 
> > 	clk_prepare_lock();
> > 
> > 	lower = __clk_round_rate(clk, rate);
> this is CCF specific while I don't see a need for it. (But yes, a
> lock-less clk_find_nearest_rate is of course racy.)
> 
> > 	if (lower >= rate || (long)lower < 0) {
> If you made lower and upper a signed long, you could drop the casting
> here. BTW, why does __clk_round_rate return an unsigned long??
> There seem to be several more type mismatches in that area.
> Maybe we should add a waring if rate is > LONG_MAX?
> 
> (And ISTR that the C standard doesn't specify what the result of
> (long)lower is given that lower is of type unsigned long and holding a
> value > LONG_MAX.)

I have another iteration. I kept the locking part, switched to assuming
'long' being used for frequencies and hopefully got rid of constructs
that are not defined by the C standard:

long clk_find_nearest_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
{
	long ret, lower, upper;
	unsigned long tmp;

	clk_prepare_lock();

	lower = __clk_round_rate(clk, rate);
	if (lower >= rate || lower < 0) {
		ret = lower;
		goto unlock;
	}

	tmp = rate + (rate - lower) - 1;
	if (tmp > LONG_MAX)
		upper = LONG_MAX;
	else
		upper = tmp;

	upper = __clk_round_rate(clk, upper);
	if (upper <= lower || upper < 0) {
		ret = lower;
		goto unlock;
	}

	lower = rate + 1;
	while (lower < upper) {
		long rounded, mid;

		mid = lower + ((upper - lower) >> 1);
		rounded = __clk_round_rate(clk, mid);
		if (rounded < lower)
			lower = mid + 1;
		else
			upper = rounded;
	}

	ret = upper;

unlock:
	clk_prepare_unlock();

	return ret;
}

Is there a more elegant way to check for the arithmetic overflow?

	Thanks,
	Sören