Re: [PATCH] clk: add strict of_clk_init dependency check
From: Boris BREZILLON
Date: Wed Feb 05 2014 - 10:14:16 EST
On 05/02/2014 16:05, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
On 05/02/2014 15:48, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
Hi Boris,
On 05/02/2014 10:48, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
The parent dependency check is only available on the first parent of a given
clk.
Add support for strict dependency check: all parents of a given clk must be
initialized.
Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Hello Gregory,
This patch adds support for strict check on clk dependencies (check if all
parents specified by an DT clk node are initialized).
I'm not sure this is what you were expecting (maybe testing the first parent
is what you really want), so please feel free to tell me if I'm wrong.
Best Regards,
Boris
drivers/clk/clk.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
index beb0f8b..6849769 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
@@ -2543,22 +2543,37 @@ static int parent_ready(struct device_node *np)
{
struct of_phandle_args clkspec;
struct of_clk_provider *provider;
+ int num_parents;
+ bool found;
+ int i;
/*
* If there is no clock parent, no need to wait for them, then
* we can consider their absence as being ready
*/
- if (of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "clocks", "#clock-cells", 0,
- &clkspec))
+ num_parents = of_count_phandle_with_args(np, "clocks", "#clock-cells");
+ if (num_parents <= 0)
return 1;
- /* Check if we have such a provider in our array */
- list_for_each_entry(provider, &of_clk_providers, link) {
- if (provider->node == clkspec.np)
+ for (i = 0; i < num_parents; i++) {
+ if (of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "clocks", "#clock-cells", i,
+ &clkspec))
return 1;
+
+ /* Check if we have such a provider in our array */
+ found = false;
+ list_for_each_entry(provider, &of_clk_providers, link) {
+ if (provider->node == clkspec.np) {
+ found = true;
+ break;
Hum this means that as soon as you have one parent then you consider it
as ready. It is better of what I have done because I only test the 1st
parent. However I wondered if we should go further by ensuring all the
parents are ready.
My bad, I read the code too fast. Your code already checks that all the
parents are ready.
So if you agree I will merge your code with mine and send a new patch.
That's fine by me.
If I am right, there is more than one parent only for the muxer. In this
case is it really expected that all the parent are ready?
Thanks,
Gregory
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (!found)
+ return 0;
}
- return 0;
+ return 1;
}
/**
--
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/