Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <97c2375f41fe7dabc4d71f66c9808912eb0ce611.camel@baylibre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] clk: Introduce get_parent_hw clk op
From:   Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:40:07 +0100
In-Reply-To: <154888381385.169292.12776041058756822056@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
References: <20190129061021.94775-1-sboyd@kernel.org>
         <20190129061021.94775-3-sboyd@kernel.org>
         <e303573aefeaf6a7e3a4b1d820e801354ff900b4.camel@baylibre.com>
         <154879654428.136743.10048771201181501034@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
         <ff76dcdb4ceb3209619e5348ed7b575a8ae9df8d.camel@baylibre.com>
         <154888381385.169292.12776041058756822056@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.4 (3.30.4-1.fc29) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 13:30 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > With this quirk, CCF is making an assumption that might be wrong.
> > 
> > The quirk is very easy put in the get_parent() callback of the said
> > driver, or
> > even better, don't provide the callback if it should not be called.
> > 
> > I understand the need for a cautious approach. It seems I'm only one with
> > that
> > issue right now and since I have a work around, there is no rush. But we
> > must
> > have plan to make it right.
> > 
> > To be clear, I'm not against your new API but I don't think it should be a
> > reason to keep a broken behavior the framework.
> > 
> 
> So do you think you can use this new clk_op and ignore the problems with
> the .get_parent clk op? Putting effort into fixing the .get_parent
> design isn't very useful from my perspective. There's more than just the
> problem that we don't call it when .num_parents is 1. There's the
> inability to return errors without doing weird things to return an index
> out of range and there isn't any way for us to really know if the clk is
> an orphan or not. If we can migrate all drivers to use the new clk op
> then we can fix these problems too, and deprecate and eventually remove
> the broken by design .get_parent clk op API.

Stephen, I have nothing against your new API, I'm sure it will solve many
issues

I'm also quite sure that, like round_rate() and determine_rate(), migrating to
the new API won't happen overnight. We are likely to still see get_parent()
for a while. I don't understand why we would keep something wrong when it is
that easy to fix.

I have spent quite sometime debugging this weird behavior of CCF, I'd prefer
if it can avoided for others.

Yes, fixing the case I reported does not solves all the problem you have
mentionned. Keeping this bug does not help either, AFAICT.

The fact is that get_parent() already return out of bound values on some
occasion, and we already have to deal with this when converting the index to
parent clk_hw pointer. Doing it in the same way when num_parent == 1 does not
change anything.

I really don't understand why you insist on keeping this special case for
num_parent == 1, when we know it is not coherent.

Considering, that I already proposed the fix, what is the effort here ?
If it is fixing the driver that rely this weird thing, I'd be happy to do it.

Regards
Jerome