On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 23:21, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:08 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 17:40, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:42 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > + value |= readl_relaxed(reg) & ~mask;
> > >
> > > value is not masked, is it okay?
> > >
> > > Usual pattern for this kind of operations is
> > >
> > > value = (current & ~mask) | (value & mask);
> >
> > This function is only ever called with constants, already masked
> > values or the parent number from the clk framework, so it should be
> > ok.
>
> Up to you, but I think it's better to have a usual pattern.
>
> > > > + writel_relaxed(value, reg);
>
> ...
>
> > > > + rate = parent / div;
> > > > + if (rate < req->min_rate && div > 1) {
> > > > + div -= 1;
> > > > + rate = parent / div;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Seems like homegrown DIV_ROUND_UP() or so. Who will guarantee that
> > > decreasing div by 1 will satisfy the conditional again?
> >
> > Maths unless I'm mistaken: div = DIV_ROUND_UP(parent, target), so in
> > rational numbers
> > div - 1 < parent / target
> > But the target is clamped by min_rate and max_rate, so
> > min_rate <= target < parent / (div - 1) = rate
> >
> > Sorry, re-using the rate varable for both the target and result is
> > confusing. I'll fix that.
>
> Also needs a comment, I believe.
Will add.
> ...
>
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > >
> > > Perhaps __maybe_unused?
> >
> > I can definitely use __maybe_unused for the function declaration, but
> > then I'll need a conditional every time clk_ops.debug_init needs to be
> > initialized to either the function or NULL depending on
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_FS below. Is that better?
>
> Actually, why can't you always initialize the field? Shouldn't CLK
> core take care about this conditional?
It could, but I see other drivers avoiding the code bloat when debugfs
is not enabled, so I thought I'd copy that.
> > > > +#else
> > > > +#define jh7100_clk_debug_init NULL
> > > > +#endif
>
> ...
>
> > > > + while (idx > 0)
> > > > + clk_hw_unregister(&priv->reg[--idx].hw);
> > >
> > > The
> > >
> > > while (idx--)
> > > clk_hw_unregister(&priv->reg[idx].hw);
> > >
> > > is slightly better to read.
> >
> > It's not something I'll insist hard on, but I must admit I disagree.
> > To me the above looks like cartoon characters running off a cliff and
> > back. As a middle ground could we maybe do this?
> >
> > while (idx)
> > clk_hw_unregister(&priv->reg[--idx].hw);
>
> My point is exactly in having the common pattern for error paths, i.e.
>
> while (counter--)
> ...bla-bla-bla...
>
> Your second approach is better, but I think that proposed by me is even better.
>
> ...
>
> > > > +subsys_initcall(clk_starfive_jh7100_init);
> > >
> > > Any explanation why subsys_initcall() is in use?
> >
> > TBH I just inherited that from Geert's first mock driver and never
> > thought to question it. What would be a better alternative to try?
>
> At least add a comment to explain the choice.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
