Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] PM / clock_ops: Add pm_clk_add_clk()

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 01:14:09PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:02:41PM +0300, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> > On 10/22/2014 08:38 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > >On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:56:02PM +0300, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> > >>From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>
> > >>The existing pm_clk_add() allows to pass a clock by con_id. However,
> > >>when referring to a specific clock from DT, no con_id is available.
> > >>
> > >>Add pm_clk_add_clk(), which allows to specify the struct clk * directly.
> > >>
> > >>Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx>
> > >>---
> > >>
> > >>  Pay attantion pls, that there is another series of patches
> > >>  which have been posted already and which depends from this patch
> > >>    "[PATCH v4 0/3] ARM: rk3288 : Add PM Domain support"
> > >>    https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/20/105
> > >>
> > >>  drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > >>  include/linux/pm_clock.h       |  8 ++++++++
> > >>  2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >>diff --git a/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c b/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c
> > >>index 7836930..f14b767 100644
> > >>--- a/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c
> > >>+++ b/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c
> > >>@@ -53,7 +53,8 @@ static inline int __pm_clk_enable(struct device *dev, struct clk *clk)
> > >>   */
> > >>  static void pm_clk_acquire(struct device *dev, struct pm_clock_entry *ce)
> > >>  {
> > >>-	ce->clk = clk_get(dev, ce->con_id);
> > >>+	if (!ce->clk)
> > >>+		ce->clk = clk_get(dev, ce->con_id);
> > >>  	if (IS_ERR(ce->clk)) {
> > >>  		ce->status = PCE_STATUS_ERROR;
> > >>  	} else {
> > >>@@ -63,15 +64,8 @@ static void pm_clk_acquire(struct device *dev, struct pm_clock_entry *ce)
> > >>  	}
> > >>  }
> > >>
> > >>-/**
> > >>- * pm_clk_add - Start using a device clock for power management.
> > >>- * @dev: Device whose clock is going to be used for power management.
> > >>- * @con_id: Connection ID of the clock.
> > >>- *
> > >>- * Add the clock represented by @con_id to the list of clocks used for
> > >>- * the power management of @dev.
> > >>- */
> > >>-int pm_clk_add(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
> > >>+static int __pm_clk_add(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
> > >>+			struct clk *clk)
> > >>  {
> > >>  	struct pm_subsys_data *psd = dev_to_psd(dev);
> > >>  	struct pm_clock_entry *ce;
> > >>@@ -93,6 +87,8 @@ int pm_clk_add(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
> > >>  			kfree(ce);
> > >>  			return -ENOMEM;
> > >>  		}
> > >>+	} else {
> > >>+		ce->clk = clk;

Shouldn't this be

		ce->clk = __clk_get(clk);

to account for clk_put() in __pm_clk_remove()?

> > >>  	}
> > >>
> > >>  	pm_clk_acquire(dev, ce);
> > >>@@ -104,6 +100,31 @@ int pm_clk_add(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
> > >>  }
> > >>
> > >>  /**
> > >>+ * pm_clk_add - Start using a device clock for power management.
> > >>+ * @dev: Device whose clock is going to be used for power management.
> > >>+ * @con_id: Connection ID of the clock.
> > >>+ *
> > >>+ * Add the clock represented by @con_id to the list of clocks used for
> > >>+ * the power management of @dev.
> > >>+ */
> > >>+int pm_clk_add(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
> > >>+{
> > >>+	return __pm_clk_add(dev, con_id, NULL);
> > >
> > >Bikeshedding: why do we need __pm_clk_add() and not simply have
> > >"canonical" pm_clk_add_clk() and then do:
> > >
> > >int pm_clk_add(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
> > >{
> > >	struct clk *clk;
> > >
> > >	clk = clk_get(dev, con_id);
> > >	...
> > >	return pm_clk_add_clk(dev, clk);
> > >}
> > 
> > Hm. I did fast look at code and:
> > 1) agree - there is a lot of thing which can be optimized ;)
> > 2) in my strong opinion, this patch is the fastest and simplest
> > way to introduce new API (take a look on pm_clock_entry->con_id
> > management code) and It is exactly what we need as of now.
> 
> Yeah, I guess. We are lucky we do not crash when we are tryign to print
> NULL strings (see pm_clk_acquire).
> 
> BTW, what is the point of doing pm_clk_add(dev, NULL)? We add clock
> entry with status PCE_STATUS_ERROR and then have to handle it
> everywhere? Can we just return -EINVAL if someone triies to pass NULL
> ass con_id?

Umm, no, ignore me here, I misread clk_get(dev, NULL) - it won't return
error. Still, do why do we need to keep clock entry if clk_get() fails
for some reason?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/