On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:11:44AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/06/2014 10:55 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 01:52:05PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> From: Luc Verhaegen <libv@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> This claims and enables clocks listed in the simple framebuffer dt node.
> >> This is needed so that the display engine, in case the required clocks
> >> are known by the kernel code and are described in the dt, will remain
> >> properly enabled.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Luc Verhaegen <libv@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> [hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx: drop dev_err on kzalloc failure]
> >> Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c | 100 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c
> >> index b7d5c08..f329cc1 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/simplefb.c
> >> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/module.h>
> >> #include <linux/platform_data/simplefb.h>
> >> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >> +#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
> >>
> >> static struct fb_fix_screeninfo simplefb_fix = {
> >> .id = "simple",
> >> @@ -165,8 +166,98 @@ static int simplefb_parse_pd(struct platform_device *pdev,
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * Clock handling code.
> >> + *
> >> + * Here we handle the clocks property of our "simple-framebuffer" dt node.
> >> + * This is necessary so that we can make sure that any clocks needed by
> >> + * the display engine that the bootloader set up for us (and for which it
> >> + * provided a simplefb dt node), stay up, for the life of the simplefb
> >> + * driver.
> >> + *
> >> + * When the driver unloads, we cleanly disable, and then release the clocks.
> >> + */
> >> +struct simplefb_clock {
> >> + struct list_head list;
> >> + struct clk *clock;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * We only complain about errors here, no action is taken as the most likely
> >> + * error can only happen due to a mismatch between the bootloader which set
> >> + * up simplefb, and the clock definitions in the device tree. Chances are
> >> + * that there are no adverse effects, and if there are, a clean teardown of
> >> + * the fb probe will not help us much either. So just complain and carry on,
> >> + * and hope that the user actually gets a working fb at the end of things.
> >> + */
> >> +static void
> >> +simplefb_clocks_init(struct platform_device *pdev, struct list_head *list)
> >> +{
> >> + struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> >> + int clock_count, i;
> >> +
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(list);
> >> +
> >> + if (dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev) || !np)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + clock_count = of_clk_get_parent_count(np);
> >
> > This looks like it does what you expect, but its name and the fact
> > that it's in the clk-provider.h file makes me wonder if you're not
> > using the wrong side of the abstraction.
>
> I'll check to see if there is something better, assuming Luc does not
> beat me to it.
>
> >
> >> + for (i = 0; i < clock_count; i++) {
> >> + struct simplefb_clock *entry;
> >> + struct clk *clock = of_clk_get(np, i);
> >
> > devm_clk_get?
>
> Yes that would be better.
>
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + if (IS_ERR(clock)) {
> >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: clock %d not found: %ld\n",
> >> + __func__, i, PTR_ERR(clock));
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(clock);
> >> + if (ret) {
> >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> >> + "%s: failed to enable clock %d: %d\n",
> >> + __func__, i, ret);
> >> + clk_put(clock);
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + entry = kzalloc(sizeof(struct simplefb_clock), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + if (!entry) {
> >> + clk_disable_unprepare(clock);
> >> + clk_put(clock);
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + entry->clock = clock;
> >> + /*
> >> + * add to the front of the list, so we disable clocks in the
> >> + * correct order.
> >> + */
> >> + list_add(&entry->list, list);
> >
> > I really don't think this whole list dance is necessary, especially
> > after reading this comment.
>
> So you're suggesting to just make this an array, with say 5 entries,
> or ... ?
Maybe something smarter, like a kmalloc'd array with the number of
clocks needed?
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
