[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code
thierry.reding at gmail.com
Mon Sep 29 07:00:57 PDT 2014
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:32:44PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> You know that you are going to call that for regulator, reset, power
> >> >> domains, just as you would have needed to with the proper API, unless
> >> >> that with this kind of solution, you would have to modify *every*
> >> >> framework that might interact with any resource involved in getting
> >> >> simplefb running?
> >> >
> >> > We have to add handling for every kind of resource either way. Also if
> >> > this evolves into a common pattern we can easily wrap it up in a single
> >> > function call.
> >> disable_all_power_management(), as this is not limited to clocks.
> > Right. But it isn't all power management either. It just shouldn't turn
> > everything unused off. Clocks, regulators, power domains and so on which
> > are used can very well be power managed.
> No they can't, as the clock/regulator/PM domain core cannot know if any
> of the used ones are also used by a shim driver like simplefb.
> Clocks and regulators may be shared. PM domains can contain multiple
> hardware blocks. Without more knowledge, the only safe thing is not
> disabling anything.
Indeed. That's a shame. In the most common case that probably won't
matter all that much, given that the real driver can be expected to load
within a reasonable amount of time.
> >> >> 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.
> Yes it is: if all users of a clock/regulator/PM domain are gone, it will
> be disabled. Bad luck for simplefb still needing them.
Hmm... if all users are gone, then aren't the resources unused again and
should therefore be ignored?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the linux-arm-kernel