Re: [PATCH 2/4] clk: qcom: common: introduce qcom_cc_sync_state()

[Brian Masney]

Hi Konrad / Dmitry,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 04:33:17PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 6/15/26 4:24 PM, Brian Masney wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 07, 2026 at 01:30:03PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 07, 2026 at 01:43:06AM -0300, Val Packett wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 6/6/26 8:15 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 10:21:47AM -0400, Brian Masney wrote:
> >>>>> Several qcom clk providers currently have a sync_state helper set to
> >>>>> icc_sync_state(). With an upcoming change to the clk framework, if
> >>>>> sync_state is not defined for the device, then the clk framework sets it
> >>>>> to clk_sync_state().
> >>>>> [..]
> >>>>> @@ -464,5 +466,12 @@ int qcom_cc_probe_by_index(struct platform_device *pdev, int index,
> >>>>>   }
> >>>>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_cc_probe_by_index);
> >>>>> +void qcom_cc_sync_state(struct device *dev)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +	icc_sync_state(dev);
> >>>> Only if desc->icc_hws != 0, otherwise it will mess the interconnect
> >>>> internals. You might need to set drvdata to desc.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm…
> >>>
> >>> Currently icc_sync_state does not seem to use the dev argument at all.
> >>>
> >>> How would something get messed up, now or whenever icc_sync_state changes?
> >>> o.0
> >>
> >> Yes :-(
> > 
> > Sorry about the delayed response since I was out of town all last week.
> > Just to be clear, the missing check for 'desc->icc_hws != 0' is a bug that
> > existed prior to my change, and I should label it as such with a Fixes
> > tag when I post my next version?
> 
> Up until this change, having icc_hws > 0 but lacking icc_sync_state
> (or the reverse) would be be considered programmer error

icc_hws > 0 but lacking icc_sync_state (or the reverse) makes sense as a
programmer error. However...

> Starting with patch 4, this gets assigned unconditionally, so there's
> no prior bug to be fixed

I don't see where that situation happens here. All of the places where
icc_sync_state() was previously called, the new code now calls
qcom_cc_sync_state() -> icc_sync_state(). (There is
qcom_msm8996_cbf_icc_sync_state() that needs to be modified.)

In patch 4 of this series, it sets up a framework level sync_state()
callback with dev_set_drv_sync_state(). If a sync_state already exists,
then that call will fail with -EBUSY, and it will leave the existing
sync_state() intact. So it's not calling sync_state twice. I will
clarify that on the comment.

Brian