[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code
thierry.reding at gmail.com
Mon Sep 29 21:59:59 PDT 2014
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:57:18PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 03:54:00PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > 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.
> Well, it never says that it also prevent them from being disabled
> later on. But it's true it's not very explicit.
Keep all clocks already enabled by bootloader on,
even if no driver has claimed them. ...
There's no "until" or anything there, so I interpret that as
> > > > 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.
> Except that the driver that has the most logic (ie not simplefb) will
> have a way to recover and deal with that.
You're making an assumption here. Why would the driver have such logic
if nothing ever prevented it from setting the rate properly before.
> But sure, you can still try to point new issues, get an obvious and
> robust solution, and then discard the issue when the solution doesn't
> go your way...
And you've already proven that you're completely unwilling to even
consider any other solution than what was originally proposed, so I
really don't see how discussing this further with you is going to be
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the linux-arm-kernel