Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: i8771445c:Fastmail
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 13:39:30 +0100
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] clk: Warn if we register a mux without determine_rate
Message-ID: <20221103123930.koc22wtbch56ql4y@houat>
References: <20221018-clk-range-checks-fixes-v1-0-f3ef80518140@cerno.tech>
 <20221018-clk-range-checks-fixes-v1-4-f3ef80518140@cerno.tech>
 <20221026020800.38AC8C433C1@smtp.kernel.org>
 <20221026135215.nqndtcb2unxqwwux@houat>
 <20221027214509.8EC66C433C1@smtp.kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <20221027214509.8EC66C433C1@smtp.kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 02:45:07PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting maxime@cerno.tech (2022-10-26 06:52:15)
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 07:07:58PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > but I'm fairly certain a coccinelle script can detect most of these
> > > because clk_ops are usually statically defined (although not always).
> > >=20
> > > Either way I already see that 'owl_comp_div_ops' will trigger this
> > > warning. And 'at91sam9x5_smd_ops' looks even more likely. Given that =
I'm
> > > not super keen on applying this patch.
> >=20
> > It's the reason why I didn't return an error at first, I wanted to
> > report that it's invalid and let to drivers the chance to be fixed
> > still.
> >=20
> > Should I take your above comment as you'd rather have the affected
> > drivers fixed in this patch and we then return an error, or is it that
> > you don't want that patch at all?
>=20
> You can try fixing all the drivers that are failing to meet this
> requirement (found with grep) and if they are fixed we can start
> printing the warning. That seems to be the practical approach to
> getting this patch accepted. The TODO irks me to be honest. I'd rather
> we fix everything and make it an error and be done with it.

ACK. I had a look this morning and there's indeed a good number of
clocks in that case. I'll work on it.

Maxime