[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code

Thierry Reding thierry.reding at gmail.com
Mon Sep 29 06:54:00 PDT 2014

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:34:36PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:44:57PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > >> Plus, speaking more specifically about the clocks, that won't prevent
> > > >> your clock to be shut down as a side effect of a later clk_disable
> > > >> call from another driver.
> > > 
> > > > Furthermore isn't it a bug for a driver to call clk_disable() before a
> > > > preceding clk_enable()? There are patches being worked on that will
> > > > enable per-user clocks and as I understand it they will specifically
> > > > disallow drivers to disable the hardware clock if other drivers are
> > > > still keeping them on via their own referenc.
> > > 
> > > Calling clk_disable() preceding clk_enable() is a bug.
> > > 
> > > Calling clk_disable() after clk_enable() will disable the clock (and
> > > its parents)
> > > if the clock subsystem thinks there are no other users, which is what will
> > > happen here.
> > 
> > Right. I'm not sure this is really applicable to this situation, though.
> It's actually very easy to do. Have a driver that probes, enables its
> clock, fails to probe for any reason, call clk_disable in its exit
> path. If there's no other user at that time of this particular clock
> tree, it will be shut down. Bam. You just lost your framebuffer.
> Really, it's just that simple, and relying on the fact that some other
> user of the same clock tree will always be their is beyond fragile.

Perhaps the meaning clk_ignore_unused should be revised, then. What you
describe isn't at all what I'd expect from such an option. And it does
not match the description in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt either.

> > Either way, if there are other users of a clock then they will just as
> > likely want to modify the rate at which point simplefb will break just
> > as badly.
> And this can be handled just as well. Register a clock notifier,
> refuse any rate change, done. But of course, that would require having
> a clock handle.
> Now, how would *you* prevent such a change?

Like I said in the other thread. If you have two drivers that use the
same clock but need different frequencies you've lost anyway.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140929/1a341b5c/attachment.sig>

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list