Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] clk: en7523: generalize register clocks function

[Christophe JAILLET]

Le 06/11/2025 à 21:27, Christian Marangi a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 09:25:23PM +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > Le 06/11/2025 à 20:59, Christian Marangi a écrit :
> > > Generalize register clocks function for Airoha EN7523 and EN7581 clocks
> > > driver. The same logic is applied for both clock hence code can be
> > > reduced and simplified by putting the base_clocks struct in the soc_data
> > > and passing that to a generic register clocks function.
> > >
> > > While at it rework some function to return error and use devm variant
> > > for clk_hw_regiser.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    drivers/clk/clk-en7523.c | 148 +++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > >    1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > +static int en75xx_register_clocks(struct device *dev,
> > > +				  const struct en_clk_soc_data *soc_data,
> > > +				  struct clk_hw_onecell_data *clk_data,
> > > +				  struct regmap *map, struct regmap *clk_map)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct clk_hw *hw;
> > > +	u32 rate;
> > > +	int i;
> > > +
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < soc_data->num_clocks - 1; i++) {
> > > +		const struct en_clk_desc *desc = &soc_data->base_clks[i];
> > > +		u32 val, reg = desc->div_reg ? desc->div_reg : desc->base_reg;
> > > +		int err;
> > > +
> > > +		err = regmap_read(map, desc->base_reg, &val);
> > > +		if (err) {
> > > +			pr_err("Failed reading fixed clk rate %s: %d\n",
> >
> > Would it be better to use dev_err()? (here and in other places)
>
> Yes but I wanted to limit the changes. Is it possible to do it later?

From my point of view, do as you think is the best. I'm not a 
maintainer, just a hobbyist looking randomly at patches.
So, only take my comments when they make sense to you,

> > > +			       desc->name, err);
> > > +			return err;
> > > +		}
> > > +		rate = en7523_get_base_rate(desc, val);
> > > +
> > > +		err = regmap_read(map, reg, &val);
> > > +		if (err) {
> > > +			pr_err("Failed reading fixed clk div %s: %d\n",
> > > +			       desc->name, err);
> > > +			return err;
> > > +		}
> > > +		rate /= en7523_get_div(desc, val);
> > > +
> > > +		hw = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(dev, desc->name, NULL, 0, rate);
> >
> > I think that the issue was already there before, but should we have a
> > corresponding clk_hw_unregister_fixed_rate() somewhere in this driver?
> >
> > I've not seen any.
> >
> > Or use devm_clk_hw_register_fixed_rate()?
>
> Well yes, I didn't move to devm as it's already planned to move to full
> clk with .set_rate and realtime .get_rate. Is it possible to also delay
> this in a later series?

Same answer, but in this case, even if planned to update things, I don't 
see the rational for not fixing things with a patch that would be a 
single line of code.

I've always been told that when a serie was sent, first patches should 
be fixes (that could be backported), then changes, clean-ups (taht are 
unlikely to be backported)...

In this case, should the planned work never be merged or never 
backported, there would be no opportunity to fix the leak in older kernel.

Just my 2c.

CJ

> (thanks for the review)
>
> > > +		if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
> > > +			pr_err("Failed to register clk %s: %ld\n",
> > > +			       desc->name, PTR_ERR(hw));
> > > +			return PTR_ERR(hw);
> > > +		}
> > > +
> > > +		clk_data->hws[desc->id] = hw;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	hw = en7523_register_pcie_clk(dev, clk_map);
> > > +	if (IS_ERR(hw))
> > > +		return PTR_ERR(hw);
> > > +
> > > +	clk_data->hws[EN7523_CLK_PCIE] = hw;
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >    static int en7581_pci_is_enabled(struct clk_hw *hw)
> > >    {
> > >    	struct en_clk_gate *cg = container_of(hw, struct en_clk_gate, hw);
> >
> > ...
> >
> > CJ