On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:44:50 +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On 20.03.2014 11:03, Cho KyongHo wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:08:42 +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >> On 19.03.2014 10:01, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> >>> On 19 March 2014 14:29, Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:14:53 +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >>>>> On 18.03.2014 12:09, Cho KyongHo wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:52:43 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi KyongHo,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 14 March 2014 10:35, Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> This patch uses managed device helper functions in the probe().
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> + data->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, "sysmmu");
> >>>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(data->clk)) {
> >>>>>>>> + dev_info(dev, "No gate clock found!\n");
> >>>>>>>> + data->clk = NULL;
> >>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why aren't you returning from here upon error?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is for the case of a System MMU which does not need clock gating.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are there really such cases?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>> Especially in the case of initial stage of new SoC development.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have experianced some software workaround for H/W restriction
> >>>> needs prevention of clock gating for some devices.
> >>>
> >>> So aren't these basically some exceptions/hacks rather than the usual way
> >>> of functioning of the device?
> >>>
> >>
> >> This actually raises a good question, whether we really need to support
> >> such early development SoC versions in mainline.
> >>
> >> Another thing is that if you need to assure that a clock is ungated, you
> >> must acquire it and prepare_enable explicitly, so I don't think this
> >> kind of handling is correct.
> >>
> > On early development step of a new SoC, clock related stuffs and
> > some device drivers like display controller are usually developed in parallel.
> >
> > In that case, -ENOENT from clk_get() must not treated as an error.
> > "[PATCH v11 20/17] iommu/exynos: allow having multiple System MMUs for a master H/W"
> > patch distinguishes -ENOENT from other error values returned by devm_clk_get().
>
> I still don't think upstream is right place for such development hacks
> and such assumption will mask potential errors caused by clocks
> unspecified in DT.
>
> If such thing is needed for development, an extra patch might be kept in
> development tree, until clock driver is implemented or a dummy
> fixed-rate clock might be specified in DT.
>
Ok.
Now I understand.
Error from clk_get() will be failure of probe in the next patch series.
Thanks.
KyongHo
--
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
