[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51B96F83.10309@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:36:43 +0530
From: Ambresh K <ambresh@...com>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
CC: <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>, Rajendra <rnayak@...com>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 3/3] clk: Avoid re-parenting orphan clk's having invalid
parent index.
>> Sorry for not being descriptive in commit message.
>>
>> a) Avoids unnecessary re-parenting cycle for orphan clock's with invalid parent for every clock
>>
>
> True, but this is a minor optimisation. If this is a big optimization
> for you then you really need to fix your bootloader. We shouldn't be
> optimizing slow error paths just because we refuse to fix the errors.
Got it! Should be fixed in boot-loader.
>
>> b) With patch [1/3], after a clk with invalid parent was encountered, for every clk registered thereafter seeing following logs.
>> <Snippet>
>> [ 0.000000] __clk_init: orphan clk(gpu_core_gclk_mux) invalid parent
>> [ 0.000000] __clk_init: orphan clk(gpu_core_gclk_mux) invalid parent
>> [ 0.000000] __clk_init: orphan clk(gpu_core_gclk_mux) invalid parent
>> [ 0.000000] __clk_init: orphan clk(gpu_core_gclk_mux) invalid parent
>> [ 0.000000] __clk_init: orphan clk(gpu_core_gclk_mux) invalid parent
>> [ 0.000000] __clk_init: orphan clk(gpu_core_gclk_mux) invalid parent
>> [ 0.000000] __clk_init: orphan clk(gpu_core_gclk_mux) invalid parent
>> [ 0.000000] __clk_init: orphan clk(gpu_core_gclk_mux) invalid parent
>>
>> Please advice, if can be handled better.
>>
>
> First off, I don't think we should create new structures to work around
> bugs that should be fixed. pr_err_once() will let us know something is
> wrong and won't flood the log. Even then I'm inclined to say that
> flooding the log is OK and will motivate you to fix up your bootloader.
> Error prints are there for a reason.
>
> Secondly, I spent like 10 minutes looking at this code and I'm still
> confused. For a clock with invalid parent programming, are you adding
> it to BOTH the orphan list and the has_invalid_parent list? Why? Is
> this just avoid the spurious prints? For everyone clock registered we
> walk the list of orphans to see if that orphan can be reparented. This
> patch adds another nested list walk (likely a short list) for each of
> those orphans in the first list walk, so it starts to look like O(n^2).
> I don't like it.
>
> I think the first two patches in the series look good, but unless I am
> misunderstanding this patch I feel that it can be dropped entirely.
>
Thanks for your time!
Will drop this patch and send V2 for first 2 patches.
Regards,
Ambresh
--
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