On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 10:55:09AM +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote: > Uwe Kleine-König писал(а) 01.07.2022 12:50: > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 06:22:03PM +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote: > >> Some systems have clocks exposed to external devices. If the clock > >> controller supports duty-cycle configuration, such clocks can be used as > >> pwm outputs. In fact PWM and CLK subsystems are interfaced with in a > >> similar way and an "opposite" driver already exists (clk-pwm). Add a > >> driver that would enable pwm devices to be used via clk subsystem. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@xxxxxxx> > >> -- > >> > >> Changes in v2: > >> - Address Uwe's review comments: > >> - Round set clk rate up > >> - Add a description with limitations of the driver > >> - Disable and unprepare clock before removing pwmchip > >> Changes in v3: > >> - Use 64bit version of div round up > >> - Address Uwe's review comments: > >> - Reword the limitations to avoid incorrect claims > >> - Move the clk_enabled flag assignment > >> - Drop unnecessary statements > >> Changes in v5: > >> - add missed returns > >> Changes in v6: > >> - Unprepare the clock on error > >> - Drop redundant limitations points > >> Changes in v7: > >> - Rename some variables to be in line with common naming > >> > >> -- > >> It seems like my mailserver wasn't able to send the last review > >> response to Uwe's so I'll repeat here that afaict clk.h has all the > >> methods stubbed out so compiling without HAVE_CLK is possible. > >> Sorry for a long delay with sending this since v6. FTR: The only problems I have with mail sending in this thread is to "devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx", I added a 'g' for this mail to that address :-) Otherwise if you diagnose to have problems with the pengutronix server accepting your mail, I'd like to hear about that. > >> + pcchip = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pcchip), GFP_KERNEL); > >> + if (!pcchip) > >> + return -ENOMEM; > >> + > >> + pcchip->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); > > > > You can use devm_clk_get_prepared() here and drop the clk_prepare() > > below and the clk_unprepare in .remove(). > > Here I spent a bit of time trying to remember why I thought > I've already looked at this, but after figuring out that this > devm helper didn't even exist earlier (I only see it in clk-next) > I remembered considering a totally different thing (being > clk_disable_unprepare in the _remove, which doesn't play well) > > Given that this seems to be absent from 5.19-rc6, I'm afraid adding > it here will upset the 0day as well as possibly cause issues in case > both are taken for the same merge window... Pass --base with a sensible parameter to git-format-patch (or git-send-email) to make the 0day bots happy. > On the other hand it takes me quite a while to provide replies for > this series (the trend I'm not happy with) so maybe 3-4 weeks > will indeed pass for 5.20-rc1 to have it... It's not me who merges PWM patches but Thierry. I don't know his plans and if he would be willing to pick up a new driver for the next cycle. You might still get lucky with a fast next iteration. If you want ignore the devm_clk_get_prepared() suggestion, we can still convert to that once both patches hit Linus Torvald's tree. > I think I will try to send a new version with just the comment > added shortly in case it's still not too late for the next merge > window and you can feel free to nack it if you think it already is :) I think the driver looks good otherwise, so I don't expect to have more feedback in the next round. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
