Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755800AbbGPQLO (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:11:14 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:44705 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752015AbbGPQLM (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:11:12 -0400 Message-ID: <55A7D79B.3080305@arm.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:11:07 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Boyd CC: Sudeep Holla , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-clk@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Liviu Dudau , Lorenzo Pieralisi , "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" , Arnd Bergmann , Kevin Hilman , Olof Johansson , Mike Turquette Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] clk: add support for clocks provided by SCP(System Control Processor) References: <1433760002-24120-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1433760002-24120-4-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20150702172310.GF4301@codeaurora.org> <5596A1B6.8020307@arm.com> <559ADC94.4080505@codeaurora.org> <559BF858.1020301@arm.com> <20150708014606.GH30412@codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: <20150708014606.GH30412@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3475 Lines: 84 Hi Stephen, On 08/07/15 02:46, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 07/07, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> On 06/07/15 20:52, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>>> >>> >>> If I have time I may try to start doing the clk_register() conversion, >>> but it will take a while so I doubt it will be in v4.3. I'm asking if >>> you can add a clk_hw based API that does something like >>> clk_set_rate_range() without requiring a struct clk pointer. i.e. >>> clk_hw_set_rate_range(struct clk_hw *hw, min, max) that constraints the >>> min/max rate of the clock. This way, the driver is only using clk >>> provider APIs and not clk consumer APIs. >>> >> >> I understand the intention of separating clk provider helpers/APIs >> and clk consumer APIs. Since {min,max}_rate are part of struct clk >> itself, I was thinking that you would have moved it to struct clk_core >> as part of the rework you mentioned and hence asked about the patches. >> >> IIUC, if {min,max}_rate remain part of struct clk, then how are we >> restricting that operation to just the clk providers ? clk consumer >> can still directly modify or use clk_set_rate_range. >> >> Do we continue to provide that feature for both provider and consumer ? >> If so I assume {min,max}_rate range requested by consumer should be >> within the limits set by provider and do we maintain both the limits ? >> >> Sorry if I am missing something fundamental since I don't have much >> knowledge of clk layer internals. >> > > Yes struct clk would have min/max, and struct clk_core would have > min/max. Then some sort of provider API (or possibly even > clk_init_data) would take the min/max fields and copy them over > to struct clk_core. Then during set_rate operations we would > aggregate the constraints from struct clk like we already do and > add in the constrains in struct clk_core. > > One downside to adding new fields to clk_init_data is that there > are drivers out there that aren't initializing that structure to > 0, and they're putting it on the stack, so stack junk can come > through. Furthermore, min/max would mean that every driver needs > to specify some large number for max or we have to special case > min == max == 0 and ignore it. Somehow it needs to be opt-in. If > we want to go down the clk_init_data route then perhaps we need > some sort of rate_constraint struct pointer in there that drivers > can optionally setup. > > struct clk_rate_constraint { > unsigned long min; > unsigned long max; > }; > > struct clk_init_data { > ... > struct clk_rate_constraint *rate_constraint; > }; > > I haven't thought it through completely, but I can probably write > up some patch tomorrow after I sleep on it. > I am hoping to get this series for v4.3. In order to avoid using consumer API, I can revert back to the min,max check I had in the round_rate earlier if that's fine with you ? Let me know so that I can post the next version based on that. All the other comments are already addressed. Also since this series depends on SCPI, I was thinking to get it merged via ARM-SoC, but that might conflict with the round_rate prototype change. Do do plan to share a stable base with arm-soc guys or you expect all the changes to be contained in clk tree ? Regards, Sudeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/