On 05/15/2015 06:40 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Adding Mikko in the loop (after all, he was the one complaining about
this signed long limitation in the first place, and I forgot to add
him in the Cc list :-/).
I think I got it through linux-tegra anyway, but thanks :)
Mikko, are you okay with the approach proposed by Stephen (adding a
new method) ?
Yes, sounds good to me. If a driver uses the existing methods with too
large frequencies, the issue is pretty discoverable anyway. I think
"adjust_rate" sounds a bit too much like it sets the clock's rate,
though; perhaps "adjust_rate_request" or something like that?
Thanks,
Mikko
On Thu, 7 May 2015 09:37:02 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Wed, 6 May 2015 23:39:53 -0700
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 04/30, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Clock rates are stored in an unsigned long field, but ->round_rate()
(which returns a rounded rate from a requested one) returns a long
value (errors are reported using negative error codes), which can lead
to long overflow if the clock rate exceed 2Ghz.
Change ->round_rate() prototype to return 0 or an error code, and pass the
requested rate as a pointer so that it can be adjusted depending on
hardware capabilities.
Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Mikko Perttunen <mikko.perttunen@xxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx>
This patch is fairly invasive, and it probably doesn't even
matter for most of these clock providers to be able to round a
rate above 2GHz.
Fair enough.
I've been trying to remove the .round_rate op
from the framework by encouraging new features via the
.determine_rate op.
Oh, I wasn't aware of that (BTW, that's a good thing).
Maybe this should be clearly stated (both in the struct clk_ops
kerneldoc header and in Documentation/clk.txt).
Sadly, we still have to do a flag day and
change all the .determine_rate ops when we want to add things.
Yes, but the number of clk drivers implementing ->determine_rate() is
still quite limited compared to those implementing ->round_rate().
What if we changed determine_rate ops to take a struct
clk_determine_info (or some better named structure) instead of
the current list of arguments that it currently takes? Then when
we want to make these sorts of framework wide changes we can just
throw a new member into that structure and be done.
I really like this idea, especially since I was wondering if we could
pass other 'clk rate requirements' like the rounding policy (down,
closest, up), or the maximum clk inaccuracy.
It doesn't solve the unsigned long to int return value problem
though. We can solve that by gradually introducing a new op and
handling another case in the rounding path. If we can come up
with some good name for that new op like .decide_rate or
something then it makes things nicer in the long run. I like the
name .determine_rate though :/
Okay, if you want a new method, how about this one:
struct clk_adjust_rate_req {
/* fields filled by the caller */
unsigned long rate; /* rate is updated by the clk driver */
unsigned long min;
unsigned long max;
/* fields filled by the clk driver */
struct clk_hw *best_parent;
unsigned long best_parent_rate;
/*
* new fields I'd like to add at some point:
* unsigned long max_inaccuracy;
* something about the power consumption constraints :-)
*/
};
int (*adjust_rate)(struct clk_hw *hw, struct clk_adjust_rate_req *req);
Why not changing the ->determine_rate() prototype. As said above, the
number of clk drivers implementing this function is still quite
limited, and I guess we can have an ack for all of them.
The benefit of all this is that we don't have to worry about
finding the random clk providers that get added into other
subsystems and fixing them up. If drivers actually care about
this problem then they'll be fixed to use the proper op. FYI,
last time we updated the function signature of .determine_rate we
broke a couple drivers along the way.
Hm, IMHO, adding a new op is not a good thing. I agree that it eases
the transition, but ITOH you'll have to live with old/deprecated ops in
your clk_ops structure with people introducing new drivers still using
the old ops (see the number of clk drivers implementing ->round_rate()
instead of ->determine_rate()).
Best Regards,
Boris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
