On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 03:33:29PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote: > On Tue Feb 27, 2024 at 6:11 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 03:55:24PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote: [...] > > > + depends on OF > > > > Since it's a functional dependency, why not allow compile test without OF > > being enabled? > > I'd do this then: > > depends on OF || COMPILE_TEST > > Which is better than removing the depend line. I wouldn't want the > kernel to build fine with OF=n even though we need it. OK for you? Yes! [...] > > > + u32 reg; /* next 8 bytes are r0 and r1 */ > > > > Not sure this comments gives any clarification to a mere reader of the code. > > Perhaps you want to name this as reg64 (at least it will show that you have > > 8 bytes, but I have no clue what is the semantic relationship between r0 and > > r1, it's quite cryptic to me). Or maybe it should be reg_0_1? > > Clocks are defined by two 32-bit registers. We only store the first > register offset because they always follow each other. > I like the reg64 name and will remove the comment. This straight forward > code is found in the rest of the code, I don't think it is anything > hard to understand (ie does not need a comment): > > u32 r0 = readl(base_plls + pll->reg); > u32 r1 = readl(base_plls + pll->reg + sizeof(r0)); Btw, why readq()/writeq() (with probably the inclusion of io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h) can be used in this case? It will be much better overall and be aligned with reg64 name. [...] > > I didn't get. If eq5c_init() was finished successfully, why do you need to > > seems repeat what it already done? What did I miss? > > The key here is that eq5c_init() iterates on eq5c_early_plls[] while > eq5c_probe() iterates on eq5c_plls[]. I've tried to hint at this in the > commit message: > > > Two PLLs are required early on and are therefore registered at > > of_clk_init(). Those are pll-cpu for the GIC timer and pll-per for the > > UARTs. > > Doing everything in eq5c_init() is not clean because we expect all new > clock provider drivers to be standard platform drivers. Doing > everything from a platform driver probe doesn't work because some > clocks are required earlier than platform bus init. We therefore do a > mix. Am I missing something or these two pieces are using the same IO resources? This looks like a lot of code duplication without clear benefit. Perhaps you can have a helper? > This has been approved by Stephen Boyd in this email: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fa32e6fae168e10d42051b89197855e9.sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx/ OK! [...] > > > + eq5c_clk_data->hws[pll->index] = hw; > > > + if (IS_ERR(hw)) > > > > > + dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(hw), "failed registering %s\n", > > > + pll->name); > > > > Missed return statement? > > No, we still try to register all clocks even if one failed. I guess we > can call this being optimistic. But how critical these clocks are? I believe we should panic it we have no critical calls be available. Otherwise, why '_err_'? Shouldn't be dev_warn()? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
