| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAJOA=zPdjqpAzqWEJyKX9qKXhtDpuUz5GhBRz2sNyZV77di5QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:07:12 -0800
From: "Turquette, Mike" <mturquette@...com>
To: Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>
Cc: linux@....linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
jeremy.kerr@...onical.com, paul@...an.com,
broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linus.walleij@...ricsson.com, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
dsaxena@...aro.org, patches@...aro.org,
linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
sboyd@...cinc.com, shawn.guo@...escale.com, skannan@...cinc.com,
magnus.damm@...il.com, arnd.bergmann@...aro.org,
eric.miao@...aro.org, richard.zhao@...aro.org, andrew@...n.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] clk: introduce the common clock framework
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com> wrote:
> On 14/12/11 14:53, Mike Turquette wrote:
>> +void __clk_unprepare(struct clk *clk)
>> +{
>> + if (!clk)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (WARN_ON(clk->prepare_count == 0))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (--clk->prepare_count > 0)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + WARN_ON(clk->enable_count > 0);
>> +
>> + if (clk->ops->unprepare)
>> + clk->ops->unprepare(clk);
>> +
>> + __clk_unprepare(clk->parent);
>> +}
>
>
> I think you can rewrite this to get rid of the recursion as below:
>
> while (clk) {
> if (WARN_ON(clk->prepare_count == 0))
> return;
>
> if (--clk->prepare_count > 0)
> return;
>
> WARN_ON(clk->enable_count > 0)
>
> if (clk->ops->unprepare)
> clk->ops->unprepare(clk);
>
> clk = clk->parent;
> }
Looks good. I'll roll into next set.
> Also, should this function be static?
No, since platform clk code will occasionally be forced to call
clk_(un)prepare while the prepare_lock mutex is held. For a valid
example see:
http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/mturquette/linux.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-omap2/dpll3xxx.c;h=b2412574b63829944593c1a7a6eda5fa4350686f;hb=738bde65918ae1ac743b1498801da0b860e2ee32#l461
>> +void clk_unprepare(struct clk *clk)
>> +{
>> + mutex_lock(&prepare_lock);
>> + __clk_unprepare(clk);
>> + mutex_unlock(&prepare_lock);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_unprepare);
>> +
>> +int __clk_prepare(struct clk *clk)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + if (!clk)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if (clk->prepare_count == 0) {
>> + ret = __clk_prepare(clk->parent);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + if (clk->ops->prepare) {
>> + ret = clk->ops->prepare(clk);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + __clk_unprepare(clk->parent);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + clk->prepare_count++;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
>
> This is unfortunately a bit tricky to remove the recursion from without
> keeping a local stack of the clocks leading up to first unprepared
> client :-/.
>
> Again, should this be static? What outside this file needs to
> prepare/unprepare clocks without the lock held?
Same as above.
>> +int clk_prepare(struct clk *clk)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&prepare_lock);
>> + ret = __clk_prepare(clk);
>> + mutex_unlock(&prepare_lock);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_prepare);
>> +
>> +void __clk_disable(struct clk *clk)
>> +{
>> + if (!clk)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (WARN_ON(clk->enable_count == 0))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (--clk->enable_count > 0)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (clk->ops->disable)
>> + clk->ops->disable(clk);
>> +
>> + if (clk->parent)
>> + __clk_disable(clk->parent);
>
>
> Easy to get rid of the recursion here. Also should be static?
Yes the enable/disable should be static. I originally made them
non-static when I converted the prepare/unprepare set, but of course
it's possible to call these with the prepare_lock mutex held so I'll
fix this up in the next set.
>> +long clk_round_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
>> +{
>> + if (clk && clk->ops->round_rate)
>> + return clk->ops->round_rate(clk, rate, NULL);
>> +
>> + return rate;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_round_rate);
>
>
> If the clock doesn't provide a round rate function then shouldn't we
> return an error to the caller? Telling the caller that the rate is
> perfect might lead to odd driver bugs?
Yes this code should so something better. I've been focused mostly on
the "write" aspects of the clk API (set_rate, set_parent,
enable/disable and prepare/unprepare) and less on the "read" aspects
of the clk API (get_rate, get_parent, round_rate, etc). I'll give
this a closer look for the next set.
>> +/**
>> + * DOC: Using the CLK_PARENT_SET_RATE flag
>> + *
>> + * __clk_set_rate changes the child's rate before the parent's to more
>> + * easily handle failure conditions.
>> + *
>> + * This means clk might run out of spec for a short time if its rate is
>> + * increased before the parent's rate is updated.
>> + *
>> + * To prevent this consider setting the CLK_GATE_SET_RATE flag on any
>> + * clk where you also set the CLK_PARENT_SET_RATE flag
>> + */
>
>
> Is this standard kerneldoc format?
It is:
http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/mturquette/linux.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt;h=3d8a97747f7731c801ca7d3a1483858feeb76b6c;hb=refs/heads/v3.2-rc5-clkv4-omap#l298
>> +struct clk *__clk_set_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
>
>
> static?
I'll make it static. I don't think any platform code needs to call
this (at least I hope not).
>> +{
>> + struct clk *fail_clk = NULL;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> + unsigned long old_rate = clk->rate;
>> + unsigned long new_rate;
>> + unsigned long parent_old_rate;
>> + unsigned long parent_new_rate = 0;
>> + struct clk *child;
>> + struct hlist_node *tmp;
>> +
>> + /* bail early if we can't change rate while clk is enabled */
>> + if ((clk->flags & CLK_GATE_SET_RATE) && clk->enable_count)
>> + return clk;
>> +
>> + /* find the new rate and see if parent rate should change too */
>> + WARN_ON(!clk->ops->round_rate);
>> +
>> + new_rate = clk->ops->round_rate(clk, rate, &parent_new_rate);
>> +
>> + /* FIXME propagate pre-rate change notification here */
>> + /* XXX note that pre-rate change notifications will stack */
>> +
>> + /* change the rate of this clk */
>> + if (clk->ops->set_rate)
>> + ret = clk->ops->set_rate(clk, new_rate);
>> +
>> + if (ret)
>> + return clk;
>
>
> Is there are reason to write it this way and not:
>
> if (clk->ops->set_rate) {
> ret = clk->ops->set_rate(clk, new_rate);
> if (ret)
> return clk;
> }
>
> If !clk->ops->set_rate then ret is always zero right? Note, making this
> change means that you don't need to init ret to zero at the top of this
> function.
Looks good. Will fix in the next set.
>> +int clk_set_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
>> +{
>> + struct clk *fail_clk;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + /* prevent racing with updates to the clock topology */
>> + mutex_lock(&prepare_lock);
>> +
>> + /* bail early if nothing to do */
>> + if (rate == clk->rate)
>> + goto out;
>
>> +
>> + fail_clk = __clk_set_rate(clk, rate);
>> + if (fail_clk) {
>> + pr_warn("%s: failed to set %s rate\n", __func__,
>> + fail_clk->name);
>> + /* FIXME propagate rate change abort notification here */
>> + ret = -EIO;
>
>
> Why does __clk_set_rate return a struct clk if you don't do anything
> with it? You can move the pr_warn into __clk_set_rate and have it return
> a proper errno value instead so that you get a reason why it failed to
> set the rate.
The next patch in the series uses fail_clk to propagate
ABORT_RATE_CHANGE notifications to any drivers that have subscribed to
them. The FIXME comment hints at that but doesn't make it clear. The
idea is that the PRE_RATE_CHANGE notifiers will be noisy and stack up
(potentially), but I only want to propagate the POST_RATE_CHANGE and
ABORT_RATE_CHANGE notifications once for any single call to
clk_set_rate, which is why __clk_set_rate returns a struct clk *.
>> +void __clk_reparent(struct clk *clk, struct clk *new_parent)
>> +{
>
>> + if (!clk || !new_parent)
>> + return;
>
>
> clk_reparent already checks for !clk, shouldn't it also check for
> !new_parent and remove the check from here?
I need to take another look at this. new_parent can be NULL if we
think it is plausible for a parented clk to suddenly become a root clk
(where clk->parent == NULL).
Thanks for reviewing,
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists