Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752341Ab2EBEmn (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:42:43 -0400 Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:10715 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751011Ab2EBEml (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:42:41 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6698"; a="184488181" Message-ID: <4FA0BB3D.4040004@codeaurora.org> Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 21:42:37 -0700 From: Saravana Kannan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120420 Thunderbird/12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Turquette CC: Mike Turquette , Arnd Bergman , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Andrew Lunn , Paul Walmsley , Russell King , Linus Walleij , Stephen Boyd , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Sascha Hauer , Mark Brown , Magnus Damm , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Richard Zhao , Grant Likely , Deepak Saxena , Amit Kucheria , Jamie Iles , Jeremy Kerr , Thomas Gleixner , Shawn Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: Use a separate struct for holding init data. References: <1335419936-10881-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> <20120502020418.GF17311@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120502020418.GF17311@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5390 Lines: 140 On 05/01/2012 07:04 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: > On 20120425-22:58, Saravana Kannan wrote: >> Create a struct clk_init_data to hold all data that needs to be passed from >> the platfrom specific driver to the common clock framework during clock >> registration. Add a pointer to this struct inside clk_hw. >> >> This has several advantages: >> * Completely hides struct clk from many clock platform drivers and static >> clock initialization code that don't care for static initialization of >> the struct clks. >> * For platforms that want to do complete static initialization, it removed >> the need to directly mess with the struct clk's fields while still >> allowing to statically allocate struct clk. This keeps the code more >> future proof even if they include clk-private.h. >> * Simplifies the generic clk_register() function and allows adding optional >> fields in the future without modifying the function signature. >> * Simplifies the static initialization of clocks on all platforms by >> removing the need for forward delcarations or convoluted macros. >> >> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan > > Hi Saravana, > > Thanks for the patch. I've taken it into my clk-next but I have two > points: Yayyy!! Finally I can get rid of having to know about struct clk. > 1) I'm surprised that you abandoned the approach of exposing the > less-private members of struct clk via struct clk_hw. Your original > patch did just that, but did not account for static initialization. > This patch seems to have gone in the opposite direction and only > accounts for static initialization. I think there might be some misunderstanding on what can/can't be done with my patch. Or may be I'm not understanding your question. I used to expose the "shared" info through clk_hw. I just put them in a struct and make clk_hw point to it. This would allow for easily marking this shared info as __init data. It would have a been a pain to do (or not even possible) if I had put the fields directly into clk_hw. I'm not sure why you say my patch only accounts for static initialization. The entire clk specific struct (say, struct fixed_clk), the clk_init_data can be dynamically allocated and registered using clk_register. For completely static init, you can just do: #include static struct clk __my_clk; static struct clk_init_data __my_clki = { }; static struct fixed_clk my_clk = { .blah = 10, .hw = { .i = &__my_clki; .c = &__my_clk; }, }; __clk_register(&my_clk.hw); > > I'm happy to take the patch as-is, but I did think that there were > merits to your original approach. Is there anything the first patch could do that this one couldn't? The only small demerit of this patch that I know is that we could be doing some copying of the shared data when we do clk_register() (this prevents us from having one copy of parent list, etc). > > 2) I did make a modification to your patch where I kept the > DEFINE_CLK_* macros and continued to declare __clk_init in > clk-private.h. I do want to get rid of both of these in the future but > currently my platform relies on static initialization before the > allocator is available. Please let me know if this causes a problem for > you. I definitely had your requirements in mind too when I made the changes. You really shouldn't need __clk_init. That's why I added __clk_register. With __clk_register (and the example I gave above), you should be able to do fully static init. Is there something I missed? The DEFINE_CLK_* marcos aren't really very useful since there is no cyclic referencing going on. You also don't really need to define variables for struct clk or struct clk_init_data. You can create anonymous struct pointers if that's your style. Something like: static struct fixed_clk my_clk = { .blah = 10, .hw = { .i = &(struct clk_init_data) { }, .c = &(struct clk){}; }, }; So, with one of the above approaches, DEFINE_CLK_* macros just end up obfuscating the definition of a clock and its fields. With __clk_register() the only real difference between fully static and partly dynamic clock registration is that you don't mark the clk_init_data struct as __init and you call __clk_register() instead of clk_register(). I believe I documented it next to __clk_register() in clk.c. > Platform folks should rebase on top of this if needed. This should be > the last change to the driver/platform-facing API before 3.5. I really wish we discussed your changes before it was made, pulled in and announced since clk_init isn't really needed. But since you just added more APIs and didn't remove the ones I added, I guess it's not very bad. Since people were already frustrated with the API change I made at this point, can we recommend people to not use __clk_init() when sending patches for your clk-next? And make it static after the next kernel release? Thanks, Saravana -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/