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;
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:00:07 +0200
From:   Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To:     Guiting Shen <aarongt.shen@gmail.com>
Cc:     claudiu.beznea@microchip.com, thierry.reding@gmail.com,
        nicolas.ferre@microchip.com, alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] pwm: atmel: Enable clk when pwm already enabled in
 bootloader
Message-ID: <20230712100007.xltypsvcp7at5gg5@pengutronix.de>
References: <20230711200905.6464-1-aarongt.shen@gmail.com>
 <20230711203017.cdfe2nrjx7lt25tm@pengutronix.de>
 <90830c22-0437-591e-cee0-67b16214bc55@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="x4lxesds22p5yidt"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <90830c22-0437-591e-cee0-67b16214bc55@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


--x4lxesds22p5yidt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:45:08AM +0800, Guiting Shen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 04:30:17AM GMT+8, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote:
> > Hello,
> >=20
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 04:09:05AM +0800, Guiting Shen wrote:
> >> +static int atmel_pwm_enable_clk_if_on(struct atmel_pwm_chip *atmel_pw=
m)
> >> +{
> >> +	unsigned int i;
> >> +	int err;
> >> +	u32 sr;
> >> +
> >> +	sr =3D atmel_pwm_readl(atmel_pwm, PWM_SR);
> >> +	if (!sr)
> >> +		return 0;
> >> +
> >> +	for (i =3D 0; i < atmel_pwm->chip.npwm; i++) {
> >> +		if (!(sr & (1 << i)))
> >> +			continue;
> >> +
> >> +		err =3D clk_enable(atmel_pwm->clk);
> >> +		if (err) {
> >> +			dev_err(atmel_pwm->chip.dev,
> >> +				"failed to enable clock: %pe\n", ERR_PTR(err));
> >=20
> > Here you leak possibly a few enables. While it's not likely that the
> > (say) third enable goes wrong, it's also not that hard to handle?!
>=20
> The driver used the enable_count member of struct clk_core to count the
> PWM channels(4 channels). It will enable hardware clock only when one of
> the PWM channels becomed on from all PWM channels off which maybe return
> error. And in second/third/fourth times to clk_enable(), it just
> increased the enable_count of struct clk_core which would never return
> error.
>=20
> It maybe confused at first time to view the code.
> Do it need to add something like that: ?
>=20
> for (i =3D 0; i < atmel_pwm->chip.npwm; i++) {
> 	if (!(sr & (1 << i)))
> 		continue;
>=20
> 	err =3D clk_enable(atmel_pwm->clk);
> 	if (err) {
> 		dev_err(atmel_pwm->chip.dev,
> 			"failed to enable clock: %pe\n", ERR_PTR(err));
>=20
> 		for (i =3D 0; i < cnt; i++)
> 			clk_disable(atmel_pwm->clk);
> 		return err;
> 	}
> 	cnt++;
> }

Yes, that approx. what I thought of. Maybe also mention i in the error
message? (So something like:

	"failed to enable clock for pwm #%d: %pe\n"

Best regards
Uwe

--=20
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

--x4lxesds22p5yidt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEP4GsaTp6HlmJrf7Tj4D7WH0S/k4FAmSueaYACgkQj4D7WH0S
/k7DDAgArfr6U1/KQMuMh67ZiIJfwlHcXpL71T0UiFNHRpl6J78FmaluZRw0oWeF
cEqKmBHLgUbNsHvss7fm9ZIvr5D4z9B3aX0bDDxzy3G7T1DF2dzUKPPRvxUmjnnE
4zyPgfmc19/vNG29V5tEA/RuR1N32LAuvEzIfaEr5WlJ+N1NQCazaf+rrzvAuqIb
NBYH0bX3AV/VgxTG/YQ2spJ1C5hFEiRNaHv7fT2QgqvZ+tX0JjyjNfdukpapVlGu
Bm2tr7azbaY1+vP4OvwWfwmcdcB1pLf3wjntgKIM2JAxjnNBq3XBFL7LAS1Va2p4
2tS0FcZHLWko899/jzj5Hn+DRKxLPw==
=014i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--x4lxesds22p5yidt--