On Thu, 30 Jul 2015, Michael Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Lee Jones (2015-07-30 04:17:47)
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Michael Turquette wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Lee,
> > >
> > > + linux-clk ml
> > >
> > > Quoting Lee Jones (2015-07-22 06:04:13)
> > > > These new API calls will firstly provide a mechanisms to tag a clock as
> > > > critical and secondly allow any knowledgeable driver to (un)gate clocks,
> > > > even if they are marked as critical.
> > > >
> > > > Suggested-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/clk/clk.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > include/linux/clk-provider.h | 2 ++
> > > > include/linux/clk.h | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > > > index 61c3fc5..486b1da 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > > > @@ -46,6 +46,21 @@ static struct clk_core *clk_core_lookup(const char *name);
> > > >
> > > > /*** private data structures ***/
> > > >
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * struct critical - Provides 'play' over critical clocks. A clock can be
> > > > + * marked as critical, meaning that it should not be
> > > > + * disabled. However, if a driver which is aware of the
> > > > + * critical behaviour wants to control it, it can do so
> > > > + * using clk_enable_critical() and clk_disable_critical().
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @enabled Is clock critical? Once set, doesn't change
> > > > + * @leave_on Self explanatory. Can be disabled by knowledgeable drivers
> > >
> > > Not self explanatory. I need this explained to me. What does leave_on
> > > do? Better yet, what would happen if leave_on did not exist?
> > >
> > > > + */
> > > > +struct critical {
> > > > + bool enabled;
> > > > + bool leave_on;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > struct clk_core {
> > > > const char *name;
> > > > const struct clk_ops *ops;
> > > > @@ -75,6 +90,7 @@ struct clk_core {
> > > > struct dentry *dentry;
> > > > #endif
> > > > struct kref ref;
> > > > + struct critical critical;
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > struct clk {
> > > > @@ -995,6 +1011,10 @@ static void clk_core_disable(struct clk_core *clk)
> > > > if (WARN_ON(clk->enable_count == 0))
> > > > return;
> > > >
> > > > + /* Refuse to turn off a critical clock */
> > > > + if (clk->enable_count == 1 && clk->critical.leave_on)
> > > > + return;
> > >
> > > How do we get to this point? clk_enable_critical actually calls
> > > clk_enable, thus incrementing the enable_count. The only time that we
> > > could hit the above case is if,
> > >
> > > a) there is an imbalance in clk_enable and clk_disable calls. If this is
> > > the case then the drivers need to be fixed. Or better yet some
> > > infrastructure to catch that, now that we have per-user struct clk
> > > cookies.
> > >
> > > b) a driver knowingly calls clk_enable_critical(foo) and then regular,
> > > old clk_disable(foo). But why would a driver do that?
> > >
> > > It might be that I am missing the point here, so please feel free to
> > > clue me in.
> >
> > This check behaves in a very similar to the WARN() above. It's more
> > of a fail-safe. If all drivers are behaving properly, then it
> > shouldn't ever be true. If they're not, it prevents an incorrectly
> > written driver from irrecoverably crippling the system.
>
> Then this check should be replaced with a generic approach that refuses
> to honor imbalances anyways. Below are two patches that probably resolve
> the issue of badly behaving drivers that cause enable imbalances.
Your patch should make the requirement for this check moot, so it can
probably be removed.
> > As I said in the other mail. We can do without these 3 new wrappers.
> > We _could_ just write a driver which only calls clk_enable() _after_
> > it calls clk_disable(), a kind of intentional unbalance and it would
> > do that same thing.
>
> This naive approach will not work with per-user imbalance tracking.
Steady on. I said we "_could_", that that I think it's a good idea.
I think it's a bad idea, which is why I wrote this set. ;)
> > However, what we're trying to do here is provide
> > a proper API, so we can see at first glance what the 'knowledgeable'
> > driver is trying to do and not have someone attempt to submit a 'fix'
> > which calls clk_enable() or something.
>
> We'll need some type of api for sure for the handoff.
This set will not trigger your new checks. The clocks will be in
perfect ballance becuase a reference will be taken at start-up.
Again:
start-up:
clk_prepare_enable()
knowlegable_driver_probe:
clk_get()
knowlegable_driver_gate_clk:
clk_disable_critical()
knowlegable_driver_ungate_clk:
clk_enable_critical()
knowlegable_driver_remove:
clk_put()
> From 3599ed206da9ce770bfafcfd95cbb9a03ac44473 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michael Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:22:45 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] clk: per-user clk prepare & enable ref counts
>
> This patch adds prepare and enable reference counts for the per-user
> handles that clock consumers have for a clock node. This patch warns if
> an imbalance occurs while trying to disable or unprepare a clock and
> aborts, leaving the hardware unaffected.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/clk/clk.c | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> index 898052e..72feee9 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> @@ -84,6 +84,8 @@ struct clk {
> unsigned long min_rate;
> unsigned long max_rate;
> struct hlist_node clks_node;
> + unsigned int enable_count;
> + unsigned int prepare_count;
> };
>
> /*** locking ***/
> @@ -600,6 +602,9 @@ void clk_unprepare(struct clk *clk)
> return;
>
> clk_prepare_lock();
> + if (WARN_ON(clk->prepare_count == 0))
> + return;
> + clk->prepare_count--;
> clk_core_unprepare(clk->core);
> clk_prepare_unlock();
> }
> @@ -657,6 +662,7 @@ int clk_prepare(struct clk *clk)
> return 0;
>
> clk_prepare_lock();
> + clk->prepare_count++;
> ret = clk_core_prepare(clk->core);
> clk_prepare_unlock();
>
> @@ -707,6 +713,9 @@ void clk_disable(struct clk *clk)
> return;
>
> flags = clk_enable_lock();
> + if (WARN_ON(clk->enable_count == 0))
> + return;
> + clk->enable_count--;
> clk_core_disable(clk->core);
> clk_enable_unlock(flags);
> }
> @@ -769,6 +778,7 @@ int clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
> return 0;
>
> flags = clk_enable_lock();
> + clk->enable_count++;
> ret = clk_core_enable(clk->core);
> clk_enable_unlock(flags);
>
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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
