Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/3] Add a common struct clk

From: Uwe Kleine-König
Date: Thu Feb 10 2011 - 05:47:06 EST


Hello,

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 06:03:19PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 09:21:14AM +1300, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> > On 02/09/2011 07:41 PM, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >
> > Couple more comments below.
> >
> > ~Ryan
> >
> [...]
> > > +int clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&clk->enable_lock, flags);
> >
> > WARN_ON(clk->prepare_count == 0); ?
> >
> > > + if (clk->enable_count == 0 && clk->ops->enable)
> > > + ret = clk->ops->enable(clk);
> >
> > Does it make sense to have a clock with no enable function which still
> > returns success from clk_enable? Do we have any platforms which have
> > NULL clk_enable functions?
> >
> > I think that for enable/disable at least we should require platforms to
> > provide functions and oops if they have failed to do so. In the rare
> > case that a platform doesn't need to do anything for enable/disable they
> > can just supply empty functions.
> It's possible to be NULL. So are set_rate/get_rate.
> Ideally, if it's NULL:
> prepare/unprepare: only call parent's prepare/unprepare
> enable/disable: only call parent's enable/disable
> set_rate: fail
> get_rate: reture parent's get_rate
> set_parent: fail
> get_parent: fail
I wouldn't hard-code the parents into the generic functions. But I
suggest to provide generic callbacks to do this, e.g.

clk_get_rate_from_parent(struct clk *c)
{
struct clk *parent = clk_get_parent(c);

return clk_get_rate(parent);
}

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/