On 28.07.2016 13:17, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Dirk,
On 27/07/16 06:05, Dirk Behme wrote:
Hi Michael, Stefano and Julien,
On 22.07.2016 03:16, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, Michael Turquette wrote:
Quoting Stefano Stabellini (2016-07-14 03:38:04)
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Dirk Behme wrote:
On 13.07.2016 23:03, Michael Turquette wrote:
Quoting Dirk Behme (2016-07-13 11:56:30)
On 13.07.2016 20:43, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Dirk Behme wrote:
On 13.07.2016 00:26, Michael Turquette wrote:
Quoting Dirk Behme (2016-07-12 00:46:45)
Clocks described by this property are reserved for use by
Xen, and
the OS
must not alter their state any way, such as disabling or
gating a
clock,
or modifying its rate. Ensuring this may impose
constraints on
parent
clocks or other resources used by the clock tree.
Note that clk_prepare_enable will not prevent the rate from
changing
(clk_set_rate) or a parent from changing (clk_set_parent). The
only
way
to do this currently would be to set the following flags on
the
effected
clocks:
CLK_SET_RATE_GATE
CLK_SET_PARENT_GATE
Regarding setting flags, I think we already talked about that.
I think
the
conclusion was that in our case its not possible to
manipulate the
flags in
the OS as this isn't intended to be done in cases like ours.
Therefore
no API
is exported for this.
I.e. if we need to set these flags, we have to do that in Xen
where we
add the
clocks to the hypervisor node in the device tree. And not in
the
kernel patch
discussed here.
These are internal Linux flags, aren't they?
I've been under the impression that you can set clock "flags" via
the
device tree. Seems I need to re-check that ;)
Right, you cannot set flags from the device tree. Also, setting
these
flags is done by the clock provider driver, not a consumer. Xen is
the
consumer.
Ok, thanks, then I think we can forget about using flags for the
issue we are
discussing here.
Best regards
Dirk
P.S.: Would it be an option to merge the v4 patch we are discussing
here,
then? From the discussion until here, it sounds to me that it's the
best
option we have at the moment. Maybe improving it in the future,
then.
It might be a step in the right direction, but it doesn't really
prevent
clk_set_rate from changing properties of a clock owned by Xen. This
patch is incomplete. We need to understand at least what it would
take
to have a complete solution.
Michael, do you have any suggestions on how it would be possible
to set
CLK_SET_RATE_GATE and CLK_SET_PARENT_GATE for those clocks in a
proper
way?
No, there is no way for a consumer to do that. The provider must
do it.
All right. But could we design a new device tree binding which the Xen
hypervisor would use to politely ask the clock provider in Linux to
set
CLK_SET_RATE_GATE and CLK_SET_PARENT_GATE for a given clock?
Xen would have to modify the DTB before booting Linux with the new
binding.
Like you wrote, I would imagine it needs to be done by the clock
provider driver. Maybe to do that, it would be easier to have a new
device tree property on the clock node, rather than listing
phandle and
clock-specifier pairs under the Xen node?
Upon further reflection, I think that your clock consumer can
probably
use clk_set_rate_range() to "lock" in a rate. This is good because
it is
exactly what a clock consumer should do:
1) get the clk
2) enable the clk
3) set the required rate for the clock
4) set rate range constraints, or conversely,
5) lock in an exact rate; set the min/max rate to the same value
The problem with this solution is that it requires the consumer to
have
knowledge of the rates that it wants for that clock, which I guess is
something that Linux kernels in a Xen setup do not want/need?
Who is usually the component with knowledge of the clock rate to
set? If
it's a device driver, then neither the Xen hypervisor, nor the Xen
core
drivers in Linux would know anything about it. (Unless the clock
rate is
specified on device tree via assigned-clock-rates of course.)
Is it correct that you would prefer some sort of
never_touch_this_clk()
api?
From my understading, yes, never_touch_this_clk() would make things
easier.
Would it be somehow worth to wait for anything like this
never_touch_this_clk() api? Or should we try to proceed with
clk_prepare_enable() like done in this patch for the moment?
I am not sure who will write the new api never_touch_this_clk(). Could
you suggest an implementation based on the discussion?
As this was a proposal from Michael, I'm hoping for Michael here,
somehow ;) At least for a hint if anything like never_touch_this_clk()
would be realistic to get accepted. And if so, how this could look like.
If this is unrealistic, I think we should go the proposed
clk_prepare_enable() way, as it seems this is the best we could do at
the moment without never_touch_this_clk().
Best regards
Dirk
--
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
