[PATCH v2 01/12] clk: add new flag CLK_ROUNDING_NOOP
Brian Masney
bmasney at redhat.com
Wed Apr 29 06:55:39 PDT 2026
On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 07:15:36PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Brian Masney (2026-03-09 07:38:40)
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > index fd418dc988b1c60c49e3ac9c0c44aa132dd5da28..1187e5b1dbc123d2d2c1f43690d7dcf75a7c4ac3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > @@ -1673,7 +1690,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_hw_forward_rate_request);
> >
> > static bool clk_core_can_round(struct clk_core * const core)
> > {
> > - return core->ops->determine_rate;
> > + return core->ops->determine_rate || clk_is_rounding_noop(core);
> > }
> >
> > static int clk_core_round_rate_nolock(struct clk_core *core,
> > @@ -3528,6 +3545,7 @@ static const struct {
> > ENTRY(CLK_IS_CRITICAL),
> > ENTRY(CLK_OPS_PARENT_ENABLE),
> > ENTRY(CLK_DUTY_CYCLE_PARENT),
> > + ENTRY(CLK_ROUNDING_NOOP),
> > #undef ENTRY
> > };
> >
> > @@ -3906,13 +3924,19 @@ static int __clk_core_init(struct clk_core *core)
> >
> > /* check that clk_ops are sane. See Documentation/driver-api/clk.rst */
> > if (core->ops->set_rate && !core->ops->determine_rate &&
> > - core->ops->recalc_rate) {
> > + core->ops->recalc_rate && !clk_is_rounding_noop(core)) {
> > pr_err("%s: %s must implement .determine_rate in addition to .recalc_rate\n",
> > __func__, core->name);
> > ret = -EINVAL;
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > + if (clk_is_rounding_noop(core) && core->ops->determine_rate) {
> > + pr_err("%s: %s cannot implement both .determine_rate and CLK_ROUNDING_NOOP\n",
> > + __func__, core->name);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
>
> This hunk has me irked. I'd rather we export some function like
> clk_determine_rate_noop() that just returns 0 instead of adding another
> flag. The chance that someone can get it wrong goes down and you can
> naturally grep for any clks that are using determine_rate() without
> having to also include this flag in the grep. It makes it easier to
> reason about as well because we can have code that just checks for
> determine_rate presence instead of both (i.e. clk_core_can_round() isn't
> changed). Plus a clk_ops structure is more self-contained because it
> doesn't rely on the clk flags to go with it.
I also like the clk_determine_rate_noop() approach much better as well.
I'll send a new version.
Thanks,
Brian
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list