On 11/4/22 8:18 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> The TI DA8xx USB0 clk48 clocks implements a mux with a set_parent
> hook, but doesn't provide a determine_rate implementation.
>
> This is a bit odd, since set_parent() is there to, as its name implies,
> change the parent of a clock. However, the most likely candidate to
> trigger that parent change is a call to clk_set_rate(), with
> determine_rate() figuring out which parent is the best suited for a
> given rate.
>
> The other trigger would be a call to clk_set_parent(), but it's far less
> used, and it doesn't look like there's any obvious user for that clock.
>
> So, the set_parent hook is effectively unused, possibly because of an
> oversight. However, it could also be an explicit decision by the
> original author to avoid any reparenting but through an explicit call to
> clk_set_parent().
>
> The driver does implement round_rate() though, which means that we can
> change the rate of the clock, but we will never get to change the
> parent.
>
> However, It's hard to tell whether it's been done on purpose or not.
>
> Since we'll start mandating a determine_rate() implementation, let's
> convert the round_rate() implementation to a determine_rate(), which
> will also make the current behavior explicit. And if it was an
> oversight, the clock behaviour can be adjusted later on.
I think this one should be the same as the clk:davinci changes and
not allow re-parenting. Since this is a USB 48MHz PHY clock, a rate
change will never be requested.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/clk/davinci/da8xx-cfgchip.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/davinci/da8xx-cfgchip.c b/drivers/clk/davinci/da8xx-cfgchip.c
> index 4c1cc59bba53..f60c97091818 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/davinci/da8xx-cfgchip.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/davinci/da8xx-cfgchip.c
> @@ -462,10 +462,12 @@ static unsigned long da8xx_usb0_clk48_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> return 48000000;
> }
>
> -static long da8xx_usb0_clk48_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> - unsigned long *parent_rate)
> +static int da8xx_usb0_clk48_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> + struct clk_rate_request *req)
> {
> - return 48000000;
> + req->rate = 48000000;
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static int da8xx_usb0_clk48_set_parent(struct clk_hw *hw, u8 index)
> @@ -494,7 +496,7 @@ static const struct clk_ops da8xx_usb0_clk48_ops = {
> .disable = da8xx_usb0_clk48_disable,
> .is_enabled = da8xx_usb0_clk48_is_enabled,
> .recalc_rate = da8xx_usb0_clk48_recalc_rate,
> - .round_rate = da8xx_usb0_clk48_round_rate,
> + .determine_rate = da8xx_usb0_clk48_determine_rate,
> .set_parent = da8xx_usb0_clk48_set_parent,
> .get_parent = da8xx_usb0_clk48_get_parent,
> };
>
Hi David,
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 11:49:34AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> On 11/4/22 8:18 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > The TI DA8xx USB0 clk48 clocks implements a mux with a set_parent
> > hook, but doesn't provide a determine_rate implementation.
> >
> > This is a bit odd, since set_parent() is there to, as its name implies,
> > change the parent of a clock. However, the most likely candidate to
> > trigger that parent change is a call to clk_set_rate(), with
> > determine_rate() figuring out which parent is the best suited for a
> > given rate.
> >
> > The other trigger would be a call to clk_set_parent(), but it's far less
> > used, and it doesn't look like there's any obvious user for that clock.
> >
> > So, the set_parent hook is effectively unused, possibly because of an
> > oversight. However, it could also be an explicit decision by the
> > original author to avoid any reparenting but through an explicit call to
> > clk_set_parent().
> >
> > The driver does implement round_rate() though, which means that we can
> > change the rate of the clock, but we will never get to change the
> > parent.
> >
> > However, It's hard to tell whether it's been done on purpose or not.
> >
> > Since we'll start mandating a determine_rate() implementation, let's
> > convert the round_rate() implementation to a determine_rate(), which
> > will also make the current behavior explicit. And if it was an
> > oversight, the clock behaviour can be adjusted later on.
>
> I think this one should be the same as the clk:davinci changes and
> not allow re-parenting. Since this is a USB 48MHz PHY clock, a rate
> change will never be requested.
I'm not sure, it doesn't seem to be the same clock, it's not doing the
same thing (this one will always force the same rate, the others let the
rate change), and we're not doing the same refactoring (this one had a
round_rate implementation, the other one doesn't)
Maxime