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;
Message-ID: <718f89ed-c9f7-57ce-a50b-300915c3660c@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 01:01:55 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] clk: qcom: clk-rcg2: don't re-search config on
 rcg2_set_rate
Content-Language: en-GB
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230117135459.16868-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20230117135459.16868-5-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <9fe53d8ae42e381f28715aaf8d2b7ae7.sboyd@kernel.org>
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <9fe53d8ae42e381f28715aaf8d2b7ae7.sboyd@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 29/03/2023 22:52, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Christian Marangi (2023-01-17 05:54:57)
>> Currently the rcg2 driver search the rate to apply 2 times.
>> - In _freq_tbl_determine_rate for the determine_rate function used by
>>    core clk to understand the best rate to set with set_rate
>> - In rcg2_set_rate where the suggested rate is not trusted and searched
>>    another time using a CEIL or FLOOR policy.
>>
>> This is fundamentally wrong as we are ignoring what core clock is
>> deciding and just setting whatever clock configuration we want for the
>> suggested clock. The problem is in the fact that the correct clock
>> should have already be searched and selected with the determine_rate
>> function and set_rate should just apply whatever clock was provided.
> 
> It sounds like you're assuming the rate coming into the set_rate clk_op
> is rounded? Don't make that assumption. The set_rate clk_op should round
> the rate again. The parent rate could have changed.

My fault, I suggested this some time ago on the basis that... "CCF 
switching the parent rate during the clk_set_rate() call. Then the 
second lookup might end up selecting different parent/mnd configuration."

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry