linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 4/9] of: add clock providers

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACxGe6u6ujS2TVXBmmTFdvn3e+rpnroXoswRtsw89+Mk9HGHwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:16:22 -0700
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	"Turquette, Mike" <mturquette@...com>
Cc:	Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 4/9] of: add clock providers

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Turquette, Mike <mturquette@...com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:46:58PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 03:02:04PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> > I'm about to start trying to get this and Mike's common struct clk
>>> > patches working on picoxcell, and the one thing I'm not understanding at
>>> > the moment is how to handle the tree itself.  Currently I was planning
>>> > on iterating over all clocks and finding a named input clock "ref" or
>>> > "input" perhaps.  This would be fine for picoxcell, but I guess more
>>> > complicated chips may need something else.
>>>
>>> It might be useful to have something like of_irq_init() for setting up
>>> initial clocks, but the solution feels inelegant to me.  I suspect
>>> that there will be end up being intertwined init order dependencies
>>> between clocks and irqs and other early setup stuff that could be
>>> handled better.  Again, I need to think about this some more.  There
>>> might need to be something like an of_early_probe() call that accepts
>>> a match table of compatible values and setup functions with some logic
>>> or data to resolve dependencies.  The trick will be to not end up with
>>> something complex.  I'll need to think about this more...
>>
>> Yes, probably not an easy problem to solve, especially for the platforms
>> where the parent can change at runtime.
>>
>> I wonder if an of_clk_init() could take a platform callback, so that
>> of_clk_init() goes of and creates a struct clk for each clk in the DT,
>> then for each registered clock calls a platform specific callback which
>> returns the parent (if any).  It feels like a fairly platform specific
>> problem to me.
>
> Based on Thomas' feedback I'm removing the requirement for clocks to
> be registered in-order with clk_init().  Any clock that cannot resolve
> it's parent within clk_init() (via the .get_parent callback, or
> otherwise having .parent statically initialized) will be put into an
> orphaned clocks list, which will be walked every time a new clock is
> registered.  Hurray for n^2 solutions.
>
> Does the above help with the of_clk_init problems?

It does.

> One final data point: I certainly plan on allowing for statically
> allocated clocks to live alongside DT clocks.  In fact the clock trees
> on OMAP are so large that there is some discussion about having some
> of the clocks statically allocated and some in DT, but I don't know
> what that split looks like right now.  I don't enjoy the idea of
> packing 200+ of any entity into a .dts blob.

I'm okay with that.
--
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/