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 at free-electrons.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On Wed, 6 May 2015 23:39:53 -0700
>> Stephen Boyd <sboyd at codeaurora.org> 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 at free-electrons.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de>
>>>> Tested-by: Mikko Perttunen <mikko.perttunen at kapsi.fi>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
