On 11/20/2018 02:32 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:09:05 +0100
> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/2018 08:23 AM, masonccyang@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Hi Marek,
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> 2018/11/19 下午 10:12
>>>>
>>>> To
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int rpc_spi_set_freq(struct rpc_spi *rpc, unsigned long freq)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (rpc->cur_speed_hz == freq)
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(rpc->clk_rpc);
>>>>> + ret = clk_set_rate(rpc->clk_rpc, freq);
>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(rpc->clk_rpc);
>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>
>>>> Is this clock disable/update/enable really needed ? I'd think that
>>>> clk_set_rate() would handle the rate update correctly.
>>>
>>> This is for run time PM mechanism in spi-mem layer and __spi_sync(),
>>> you may refer to another patch [1].
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git/commit/?h=for-4.21&id=b942d80b0a394e8ea18fce3b032b4700439e8ca3
>>
>> I think Geert commented on the clock topic, so let's move it there.
>> Disabling and enabling clock to change their rate looks real odd to me.
>
> Look at the CLK_SET_RATE_GATE definition and its users and you'll see
> it's not unusual to have such constraints on clks. Maybe your HW does
> not have such constraints, but it's not particularly odd to do that
> (though it could probably be automated by the clk framework somehow).
I think you stated my concern right at the end, good, no need for me to
add to this. Yes, I don't think any random driver should deal with
peculiarities of the clock controller.
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
