On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 07:34:21AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:49:19AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Thursday 22 of August 2013 15:43:31 Mike Turquette wrote:
> > > Quoting Sascha Hauer (2013-08-22 14:00:35)
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 01:09:31PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 08:19:10AM +0100, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > > > > > Quoting Tomasz Figa (2013-08-21 14:34:55)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wednesday 21 of August 2013 09:50:15 Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 01:06:25AM +0100, Mike Turquette
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Quoting Mark Rutland (2013-08-19 02:35:43)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 04:17:18PM +0100, Tomasz Figa
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday 17 of August 2013 16:53:16 Sascha Hauer
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 02:28:04PM +0200, Tomasz Figa
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I would make this option required. Use a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dummy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clock for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mux
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inputs that are grounded for a specific SoC.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some clocks are not from CCM and we haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imx6q-clk.txt,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so in most cases we can't provide a phandle for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them, eg:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spdif_ext.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's a bit hard to force it to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'required'. An
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'optional'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks more flexible to me and a default one is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ensured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <&clks 0> is the dummy clock. This can be used for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all input
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clocks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by the SoC.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Where does this assumption come from? Is it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anywhere?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is how all i.MX clock bindings currently are. See
> > > > > > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx*-clock.txt
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > OK, thanks.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I guess we need some discussion on dummy clocks vs
> > > > > > > > > > > skipped clocks.
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we want some consistency on this, don't we?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If we really need a dummy clock, then we might also want
> > > > > > > > > > > a generic
> > > > > > > > > > > way to specify it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What do we actually mean by a "dummy clock"? We already
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > bindings
> > > > > > > > > > for "fixed-clock" and co friends describe relatively
> > > > > > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > > > > preconfigured clocks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Some platforms have a fake clock which defines noops
> > > > > > > > > callbacks and
> > > > > > > > > basically doesn't do anything. This is analogous to the
> > > > > > > > > dummy
> > > > > > > > > regulator
> > > > > > > > > implementation. A central one could be registered by the
> > > > > > > > > clock core,
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > is done by the regulator core.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When you say some platforms, you presumably mean the platform
> > > > > > > > code in
> > > > > > > > Linux? A dummy clock sounds like a completely Linux-specific
> > > > > > > > abstraction rather than a description of the hardware, and I
> > > > > > > > don't see why we need that in the DT:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * If a clock is wired up and running (as presumably the dummy
> > > > > > > > clock is), then surely it's a fixed-clock (it's running, we
> > > > > > > > and we have no control over it, but we presumably know its
> > > > > > > > rate) and can be described as such?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * If no clock is wired up, then we should be able to describe
> > > > > > > > that. If a driver believes that a clock is required when it
> > > > > > > > isn't (for some level of functionality), then that driver
> > > > > > > > should be fixed up to support the clock as being optional.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Am I missing something?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I second that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moreover, I don't think that device tree should deal with dummy
> > > > > > > anything. It should be able to describe hardware that is
> > > > > > > available on given system, not list what hardware is not
> > > > > > > available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wasn't clear. The dummy clock IS a completely Linux-specific
> > > > > > abstraction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not advocating a dummy clock in DT. I am advocating
> > > > > > consolidation of the implementation of a clock that does nothing
> > > > > > into the clock core. This code could easily live in
> > > > > > drivers/clk/clk.c instead of having everyone open-code it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as specifying a dummy clock in DT? I dunno. DT should
> > > > > > describe
> > > > > > real hardware so there isn't much use for a dummy clock.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I misunderstood. Good to hear we're on the same page :)
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm guessing one of the reasons for such a clock are drivers do
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > honor the clk.h api and they freak out when clk_get gives them a
> > > > > > NULL
> > > > > > pointer?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure. Sascha, could you shed some light on the matter?
> > > >
> > > > The original reason introducing the dummy clocks in the i.MX dtbs
> > > > was to provide devices a clock which the driver requests but is
> > > > not software controllable. We often have the case where the same
> > > > devices are on several SoCs, but not on all of them all clocks have
> > > > a bit to en/disable them.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, to accomplish this we don't need dummy clocks. We can just
> > > > describe the real clocks.
> > >
> > > You could use a dummy clk for the Linux implementation, but the downside
> > > is that a dummy clock has a rate of 0 always and a your clocks likely
> > > have non-zero rates.
> > >
> > > It is probably better for you define a clock which only implements the
> > > .recalc_rate callback. If the rate of this clock changes without Linux
> > > having knowledge of it you can use the CLK_GET_RATE_NOCACHE flag.
> >
> > I doubt that rate of a dummy clock could ever change... unless it is a
> > rather smart dummy.
> >
> > > > BTW with the S/PDIF core on which not all mux inputs are connected
> > > > to actual clocks we could also describe the unconnected inputs as
> > > > ground clocks with rate 0. This way we describe something which
> > > > is really there instead of dummy clocks ;)
> > >
> > > Again you could use a dummy clock for this OR a fixed-rate clock with a
> > > rate of zero from the perspective of the Linux implementation.
> > >
> > > Do you think it worthwhile to have a DT binding for a grounded clock?
> > > That is not an entirely uncommon case.
> >
> > Well, how would that differ from skipping a clock from clocks list, i.e.
> > not specifying it in clock-names and clocks properties?
>
> The difference is that you can successfully grab it in your driver.
That's a driver-specific issue. The driver knows best which clocks it
can live without (if it's poking only a subset of the hardware, it may
not need some just yet, but could for extended functionality in future
when support is extended), and could assign a dummy to those clocks it
knows it doesn't need that aren't described. That doesn't need to be in
the dt, and shouldn't be, because it's OS and driver specific.
>
> >
> > > > Background to why it might be a good idea to connect a ground clock
> > > > to the unconnected input pins is that a driver has a chance to
> > > > successfully grab all clocks. Otherwise how does the driver
> > > > distinguish
> > > > between an unconnected and an erroneous clock?
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't follow this last question. Do you mean how to distinguish
> > > based on the value returned from clk_get?
> >
> > Hmm, in theory, a driver could want to distinguish an error case (e.g.
> > clock specified, but there is a problem with it) from no clock (e.g. clock
> > not specified in DT, because it is not available on particular board).
>
> Yes, that's what I meant. To illustrate the problem for this driver:
>
> for (i = 0; i < STC_TXCLK_SRC_MAX; i++) {
> sprintf(tmp, "rxtx%d", i);
> clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, tmp);
> if (IS_ERR(clk)) {
[...]
/*
* ERR_PTR(-ENOENT) returned when clock not
* present in the dt (i.e. not wired up). We can
* live without this clock, so assign a dummy
* (NULL) to simplify the rest of the code. If
* the clock is present but something else went
* wrong, we'll get a different ERR_PTR value
* and actually fail.
*/
if (clk == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT)
clk = NULL;
> }
> }
>
> This could be solved by always specifying all input clocks in the
> devicetree.
As far as I can see, the above is sufficient, and leaves the knowledge
of skippable clocks in the driver, where I believe it should be.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
