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;
Date:   Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:02:10 -0800
From:   Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
To:     Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Taniya Das <tdas@codeaurora.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        robh@kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>,
        Jeykumar Sankaran <jsanka@codeaurora.org>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] clk: qcom: Add Global Clock controller (GCC)
 driver for SC7180
Message-ID: <20191114010210.GF27773@google.com>
References: <20191014102308.27441-6-tdas@codeaurora.org>
 <20191029175941.GA27773@google.com>
 <fa17b97d-bfc4-4e9c-78b5-c225e5b38946@codeaurora.org>
 <20191031174149.GD27773@google.com>
 <20191107210606.E536F21D79@mail.kernel.org>
 <CAJs_Fx60uEdGFjJXAjvVy5LLBXXmergRi8diWxhgGqde1wiXXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191108063543.0262921882@mail.kernel.org>
 <CAJs_Fx5trp2B7uOMTFZNUsYoKrO1-MWsNECKp-hz+1qCOCeU8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191108184207.334DD21848@mail.kernel.org>
 <CAJs_Fx6KCirGMtQxE=xA-A=bd5LeuYWviee0+KqO5OtGT9GKEw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJs_Fx6KCirGMtQxE=xA-A=bd5LeuYWviee0+KqO5OtGT9GKEw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 11:40:53AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:42 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Rob Clark (2019-11-08 08:54:23)
> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 10:35 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Rob Clark (2019-11-07 18:06:19)
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:06 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NULL is a valid clk pointer returned by clk_get(). What is the display
> > > > > > driver doing that makes it consider NULL an error?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > do we not have an iface clk?  I think the driver assumes we should
> > > > > have one, rather than it being an optional thing.. we could ofc change
> > > > > that
> > > >
> > > > I think some sort of AHB clk is always enabled so the plan is to just
> > > > hand back NULL to the caller when they call clk_get() on it and nobody
> > > > should be the wiser when calling clk APIs with a NULL iface clk. The
> > > > common clk APIs typically just return 0 and move along. Of course, we'll
> > > > also turn the clk on in the clk driver so that hardware can function
> > > > properly, but we don't need to expose it as a clk object and all that
> > > > stuff if we're literally just slamming a bit somewhere and never looking
> > > > back.
> > > >
> > > > But it sounds like we can't return NULL for this clk for some reason? I
> > > > haven't tried to track it down yet but I think Matthias has found it
> > > > causes some sort of problem in the display driver.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ok, I guess we can change the dpu code to allow NULL..  but what would
> > > the return be, for example on a different SoC where we do have an
> > > iface clk, but the clk driver isn't enabled?  Would that also return
> > > NULL?  I guess it would be nice to differentiate between those cases..
> > >
> >
> > So the scenario is DT describes the clk
> >
> >  dpu_node {
> >      clocks = <&cc AHB_CLK>;
> >      clock-names = "iface";
> >  }
> >
> > but the &cc node has a driver that doesn't probe?
> >
> > I believe in this scenario we return -EPROBE_DEFER because we assume we
> > should wait for the clk driver to probe and provide the iface clk. See
> > of_clk_get_hw_from_clkspec() and how it looks through a list of clk
> > providers and tries to match the &cc phandle to some provider.
> >
> > Once the driver probes, the match will happen and we'll be able to look
> > up the clk in the provider with __of_clk_get_hw_from_provider(). If
> > the clk provider decides that there isn't a clk object, it will return
> > NULL and then eventually clk_hw_create_clk() will turn the NULL return
> > value into a NULL pointer to return from clk_get().
> >
> 
> ok, that was the scenario I was worried about (since unclk'd register
> access tends to be insta-reboot and hard to debug)..  so I think it
> should be ok to make dpu just ignore NULL clks.
> 
> From a quick look, I think something like the attached (untested).

The driver appears to be happy with it, at least at probe() time.