Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751912AbdLAVwp (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Dec 2017 16:52:45 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:42325 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751752AbdLAVwV (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Dec 2017 16:52:21 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMb3XnxREp113IpA/X1yZxXkgNB1jLJ28PGuayKK/eAK52fIcg3A53ze0yDhveiVYRTSTuVEEA== From: Jerome Brunet To: Stephen Boyd , Michael Turquette Cc: Jerome Brunet , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , Linus Walleij , Quentin Schulz , Kevin Hilman , Maxime Ripard Subject: [PATCH v5 10/10] clk: fix set_rate_range when current rate is out of range Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 22:52:00 +0100 Message-Id: <20171201215200.23523-11-jbrunet@baylibre.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.14.3 In-Reply-To: <20171201215200.23523-1-jbrunet@baylibre.com> References: <20171201215200.23523-1-jbrunet@baylibre.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2554 Lines: 75 Calling clk_core_set_rate() with core->req_rate is basically a no-op because of the early bail-out mechanism. This may leave the clock in inconsistent state if the rate is out the requested range. Calling clk_core_set_rate() with the closest rate limit could solve the problem but: - The underlying determine_rate() callback needs to account for this corner case (rounding within the range, if possible) - if only round_rate() is available, we rely on luck unfortunately. Fixes: 1c8e600440c7 ("clk: Add rate constraints to clocks") Tested-by: Maxime Ripard Acked-by: Michael Turquette Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet --- drivers/clk/clk.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c index edd965d8f41d..369933831705 100644 --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c @@ -2010,6 +2010,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_set_rate_exclusive); int clk_set_rate_range(struct clk *clk, unsigned long min, unsigned long max) { int ret = 0; + unsigned long old_min, old_max, rate; if (!clk) return 0; @@ -2026,10 +2027,38 @@ int clk_set_rate_range(struct clk *clk, unsigned long min, unsigned long max) if (clk->exclusive_count) clk_core_rate_unprotect(clk->core); - if (min != clk->min_rate || max != clk->max_rate) { - clk->min_rate = min; - clk->max_rate = max; - ret = clk_core_set_rate_nolock(clk->core, clk->core->req_rate); + /* Save the current values in case we need to rollback the change */ + old_min = clk->min_rate; + old_max = clk->max_rate; + clk->min_rate = min; + clk->max_rate = max; + + rate = clk_core_get_rate_nolock(clk->core); + if (rate < min || rate > max) { + /* + * FIXME: + * We are in bit of trouble here, current rate is outside the + * the requested range. We are going try to request appropriate + * range boundary but there is a catch. It may fail for the + * usual reason (clock broken, clock protected, etc) but also + * because: + * - round_rate() was not favorable and fell on the wrong + * side of the boundary + * - the determine_rate() callback does not really check for + * this corner case when determining the rate + */ + + if (rate < min) + rate = min; + else + rate = max; + + ret = clk_core_set_rate_nolock(clk->core, rate); + if (ret) { + /* rollback the changes */ + clk->min_rate = old_min; + clk->max_rate = old_max; + } } if (clk->exclusive_count) -- 2.14.3