Hi Mike, Sorry to use this old email to ask questions. Do you have any concern to apply this patch series into next version of kernel? Or do you really need a new patch series with less CLK_OF_DECLARE()? Best regards, James On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 14:24 +0800, James Liao wrote: > Hi Mike, > > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 13:25 -0800, Michael Turquette wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > Quoting James Liao (2016-02-15 01:19:42) > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 12:08 -0800, Michael Turquette wrote: > > > > Quoting James Liao (2016-02-05 01:37:27) > > > > > +CLK_OF_DECLARE(mtk_topckgen, "mediatek,mt2701-topckgen", mtk_topckgen_init); > > > > > +CLK_OF_DECLARE(mtk_infrasys, "mediatek,mt2701-infracfg", mtk_infrasys_init); > > > > > +CLK_OF_DECLARE(mtk_pericfg, "mediatek,mt2701-pericfg", mtk_pericfg_init); > > > > > +CLK_OF_DECLARE(mtk_mmsys, "mediatek,mt2701-mmsys", mtk_mmsys_init); > > > > > +CLK_OF_DECLARE(mtk_imgsys, "mediatek,mt2701-imgsys", mtk_imgsys_init); > > > > > +CLK_OF_DECLARE(mtk_vdecsys, "mediatek,mt2701-vdecsys", mtk_vdecsys_init); > > > > > +CLK_OF_DECLARE(mtk_hifsys, "mediatek,mt2701-hifsys", mtk_hifsys_init); > > > > > +CLK_OF_DECLARE(mtk_ethsys, "mediatek,mt2701-ethsys", mtk_ethsys_init); > > > > > +CLK_OF_DECLARE(mtk_bdpsys, "mediatek,mt2701-bdpsys", mtk_bdpsys_init); > > > > > +CLK_OF_DECLARE(mtk_apmixedsys, "mediatek,mt2701-apmixedsys", > > > > > > > > :-/ > > > > > > > > This is way too much CLK_OF_DECLARE and not enough Linux Driver Model. > > > > > > > > I understand that some platforms really must initialize some clocks very > > > > early, but can we please separate those into one table and call > > > > CLK_OF_DECLARE on only that set, and then register the rest through a > > > > platform_driver later on? > > > > > > I know CLK_OF_DECLARE is much earlier than platform_driver, so it can > > > ensure all drivers lookup their clocks successfully during > > > platform_driver probe. Is there anything different to init these clock > > > providers in CLK_OF_DECLARE and platform_driver? > > > > This a common pattern we're seeing right now. Joachim did a nice job of > > supporting early clocks with CLK_OF_DECLARE, and also using a proper > > driver in his lpc18xx implementation: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=145618160610001 > > Do you mean we should keep most clock init in platform_driver_probe and > use CLK_OF_DECLARE for some early clocks only? > > Using CLK_OF_DECLARE() for all clock providers is convenient. The > convenience includes coding structure and driver init order. The coding > structure means we can use a consistency way to add clock providers, so > we can reduce errors and apply code generator on clock drivers. > > The driver init order is another issue. In lpc18xx driver you mentioned > in [1], it uses ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER) to be the place holder for > non-early clocks in arch_init (CLK_OF_DECLARE), and then register early > and non-early clocks again in module_init. The EPROBE_DEFER place holder > is an interesting idea to resolve init order issue. But to register > clocks twice on the same clock provider seems not a good idea, although > it can still work in current CCF implementation. > > Is it important to move clock init into platform_driver? If not, I > prefer to keep current implementation on MT2701, and look for a better > way to init clocks in platform_driver in new SoCs. > > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=145618160610001 > > -- 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
