Re: [PATCH v2] clk: fix self-consuming provider module pinning

[Brian Masney]

Hi Jerome,

On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 03:00:51PM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> clk_hw_get_clk() lets a provider get a struct clk for one of its own
> struct clk_hw.
> 
> When a struct clk is created, the module usage count of the provider
> is unconditionally increased. For a self-consuming provider, this means
> it pins itself and the module can never be unloaded.
> 
> Increasing the module usage count should only be done when the consumer
> lives in a different module from the provider. Use THIS_MODULE to
> capture caller's module and increase the module usage count accordingly.
> 
> It is OK for consumer-only APIs such as clk_get() or of_clk_get() to
> pass a NULL owner. As a result, any provider module will get pinned,
> same as before.
> 
> Fixes: 30d6f8c15d2c ("clk: add api to get clk consumer from clk_hw")
> Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> This issue has been present for a while. Virtually all users of
> clk_hw_get_clk() are affected. The majority are compiled as builtins
> according to the defconfigs. It is not problem in this case but it is
> if the configuration is changed to module.
> 
> The following modules are using clk_hw_get_clk() and are compiled as
> module with some shipped defconfigs:
> * drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/mdp4/mdp4_lvds_pll.c
> * drivers/phy/cadence/phy-cadence-sierra.c
> * drivers/pwm/pwm-meson.c
> * sound/soc/codecs/lpass-va-macro.c
> 
> Currently those module cannot be unloaded once they have been loaded.
> 
> """
> rmmod: ERROR: Module blabla-module is in use
> """
> 
> With this applied, we can get back to removing the direct usage
> of the struct clk in struct clk_hw and eventually remove this
> struct member entirely.
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Update comment in __clk_register()
> - Add missing documention for the new parameter of clk_hw_create_clk()
> - No functional change
> - Link to v1: https://patch.msgid.link/20260721-clk-provider-pinning-v1-1-63db2e667993@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Reviewed-by: Brian Masney <bmasney@xxxxxxxxxx>

This looks good to me. I'm planning to send Stephen a pull next week for
content that I think is ready during this development cycle, however I'm
not going to include this. I suspect he's going to want a kunit test for
this and I know it's going to be complicated. My suggestion is to post
some kind of rough test scenario for this, even if it's initially not in
kunit. As I get some spare time at work, I can help you to see if we can
get a kunit test together for this.

Brian