On 01/21, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> Adds a way for clock consumers to set maximum and minimum rates. This
> can be used for thermal drivers to set minimum rates, or by misc.
> drivers to set maximum rates to assure a minimum performance level.
>
> Changes the signature of the determine_rate callback by adding the
> parameters min_rate and max_rate.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> v11: * Recalculate the rate before putting the reference to clk_core
> * Don't recalculate the rate when freeing the per-user clock
> in the initialization error paths
> * Move __clk_create_clk to be next to __clk_free_clk for more
> comfortable reading
Can we do this in the previous patch where we introduce the
function?
> @@ -2143,9 +2314,16 @@ struct clk *__clk_register(struct device *dev, struct clk_hw *hw)
> else
> clk->owner = NULL;
>
> + INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&clk->clks);
> +
> + hw->clk = __clk_create_clk(hw, NULL, NULL);
> +
> ret = __clk_init(dev, hw->clk);
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret) {
> + __clk_free_clk(hw->clk);
> + hw->clk = NULL;
> return ERR_PTR(ret);
> + }
>
> return hw->clk;
> }
> @@ -2210,12 +2388,16 @@ struct clk *clk_register(struct device *dev, struct clk_hw *hw)
> }
> }
>
> + INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&clk->clks);
> +
> hw->clk = __clk_create_clk(hw, NULL, NULL);
> ret = __clk_init(dev, hw->clk);
> if (!ret)
> return hw->clk;
>
> - kfree(hw->clk);
> + __clk_free_clk(hw->clk);
> + hw->clk = NULL;
Shouldn't we be assigning to NULL in the previous patch (same
comment for __clk_register)?
> fail_parent_names_copy:
> while (--i >= 0)
> kfree(clk->parent_names[i]);
> @@ -2420,7 +2602,14 @@ void __clk_put(struct clk *clk)
> if (!clk || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(clk)))
> return;
>
> + clk_prepare_lock();
> + hlist_del(&clk->child_node);
> + clk_prepare_unlock();
> +
> + clk_core_set_rate(clk->core, clk->core->req_rate);
> +
> clk_core_put(clk->core);
> +
Sad that we take the lock 3 times during __clk_put(). We should
be able to do it only once if we have a lockless
clk_core_set_rate() function and put the contents of
clk_core_put() into this function. Actually we need to do that to
be thread safe with clk->core->req_rate changing. We can call the
same function in clk_set_rate_range() too so that we don't have
to deal with recursive locking there.
> kfree(clk);
> }
>
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
