2022-06-10 20:24:21

by Stephen Boyd

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: clk-rpmh: Fix if statement to match comment

Quoting Li Zhengyu (2022-05-31 02:45:39)
> (c->state) is u32, (enable) is bool. It returns false when
> (c->state) > 1 and (enable) is true. Convert (c->state) to bool.
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Zhengyu <[email protected]>

Nice catch! It looks like it fixes an optimization, where we don't want
to run through and check has_state_changed() if this clk is already
enabled or disabled. But how does this ever happen? The clk framework
already reference counts prepare/unprepare, so how can we get into this
function when the condition would be true, after this patch?

I think we can simply remove the if condition entirely. Do you agree?

> ---
> drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> index aed907982344..851e127432a9 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ static int clk_rpmh_aggregate_state_send_command(struct clk_rpmh *c,
> int ret;
>
> /* Nothing required to be done if already off or on */
> - if (enable == c->state)
> + if (enable == !!c->state)
> return 0;
>
> c->state = enable ? c->valid_state_mask : 0;


2022-06-13 04:31:38

by Li Zhengyu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: clk-rpmh: Fix if statement to match comment


On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 12:58:54 -0700, Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Li Zhengyu (2022-05-31 02:45:39)
>> (c->state) is u32, (enable) is bool. It returns false when
>> (c->state) > 1 and (enable) is true. Convert (c->state) to bool.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Zhengyu <[email protected]>
> Nice catch! It looks like it fixes an optimization, where we don't want
> to run through and check has_state_changed() if this clk is already
> enabled or disabled. But how does this ever happen? The clk framework
> already reference counts prepare/unprepare, so how can we get into this
> function when the condition would be true, after this patch?
>
> I think we can simply remove the if condition entirely. Do you agree?

Sure. It seems Taniya Das (also I) hasn't mind the prepare/unprepare

of clk framework. As the result,  this if condition should be never true.

I will send a patch to remove it.

>> ---
>> drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
>> index aed907982344..851e127432a9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
>> @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ static int clk_rpmh_aggregate_state_send_command(struct clk_rpmh *c,
>> int ret;
>>
>> /* Nothing required to be done if already off or on */
>> - if (enable == c->state)
>> + if (enable == !!c->state)
>> return 0;
>>
>> c->state = enable ? c->valid_state_mask : 0;
> .