On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 06:07:01PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:31 AM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:28:53PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > > A number of PLL pairs (e.g. "sys1_pll1" and "sys1_pll2") share the
> > > same configuration register, so touching PD bit, as is done for
> > > SCCG_PLL2 in its prepare/unprepare methods will result in shut down of
> > > both PLLs. This is very undesireable, since attempting to re-parent a
> > > clock to "sys1_pll2" might result in complete system shutdown due to
> > > "sys1_pll1" being shut-down as a part of re-parenting process.
> >
> > I can imagine that there are problems with the way it is currently
> > handled, but the scenario you describe shouldn't happen. "sys1_pll1"
> > will never be shut down because it doesn't have a disable hook:
> >
> > static const struct clk_ops clk_sccg_pll1_ops = {
> > .is_enabled = clk_pll1_is_prepared,
> > .recalc_rate = clk_pll1_recalc_rate,
> > .round_rate = clk_pll1_round_rate,
> > .set_rate = clk_pll1_set_rate,
> > };
> >
> > static const struct clk_ops clk_sccg_pll2_ops = {
> > .enable = clk_pll1_prepare,
> > .disable = clk_pll1_unprepare,
> > .recalc_rate = clk_pll2_recalc_rate,
> > .round_rate = clk_pll2_round_rate,
> > .set_rate = clk_pll2_set_rate,
> > };
> >
> > Have I missed something?
> >
>
> Yes, but that's probably due to my explanation being too vague, so let
> me try again. Both clocks "sys1_pll1" and "sys1_pll2" are
> controlled/configured via separate bit fields in the _same_ register.
> That register also has a single "powerdown"/"PD" bit that is shared
> between both PLLs and affects them both. The way code is currently
> implemented calling clk_disable() on "sys1_pll2" will clear PD bit and
> as a result "sys1_pll1" will be shut down as well. This is not that
> far-fetched of a scenario because a number of derived clocks that go
> out to individual peripherals are specified with
> CLK_OPS_PARENT_ENABLE, so trivial clock re-parenting like this one:
> https://github.com/ndreys/barebox/commit/802d1d5be1f1f3df996ba26b115dd3a55bc10c67
> will result in hung system.
>
> Hopefully this does a better job of explaining what I was trying to fix.
Yeah, I thought you mixed up both PLLs, but reading your initial
eplanation again you were right from the start.
I agree that we should just remove the enable/disable hooks and see what
we have to do when somebody actually tries to do something with the
clocks (other than get the rate from)
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
