| 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: <20140223212040.22529.18650@quantum>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 13:20:40 -0800
From: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
To: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
"Gregory CLEMENT" <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
"Andrew Lunn" <andrew@...n.ch>,
"Jason Cooper" <jason@...edaemon.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Ezequiel Garcia" <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"Sebastian Hesselbarth" <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: respect the clock dependencies in of_clk_init
Quoting Tomasz Figa (2014-02-23 10:46:35)
> Hi Gregory,
>
> On 10.02.2014 18:42, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> > Until now the clock providers were initialized in the order found in
> > the device tree. This led to have the dependencies between the clocks
> > not respected: children clocks could be initialized before their
> > parent clocks.
> >
> > Instead of forcing each platform to manage its own initialization order,
> > this patch adds this work inside the framework itself.
> >
> > Using the data of the device tree the of_clk_init function now delayed
> > the initialization of a clock provider if its parent provider was not
> > ready yet.
>
> In general this is really great. It's a first step towards sorting out
> dependencies between clock providers correctly. I have some comments
> inline, though.
Just to add in here, I think the approach is good but agree with Tomasz'
review comments.
Regards,
Mike
>
> >
> > The strict dependency check (all parents of a given clk must be
> > initialized) was added by Boris BREZILLON
>
> Shouldn't this be reflected by a tag of this patch? If you squash a
> patch signed off by someone then I believe their sign-off tag should be
> added to the base patch. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Since the v1, I have merged the strict dependency check from Boris.
> > And of course tested on my Armada 370 and Armada XP based board
> >
> > drivers/clk/clk.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 106 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > index 5517944495d8..684976993297 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > @@ -2526,24 +2526,127 @@ const char *of_clk_get_parent_name(struct device_node *np, int index)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_clk_get_parent_name);
> >
> > +struct clock_provider {
>
> The name is a bit too generic and slightly misleading. IMHO struct
> deferred_clk_provider (and deferred_clk_providers for the list) would be
> better.
>
> > + of_clk_init_cb_t clk_init_cb;
> > + struct device_node *np;
> > + struct list_head node;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static LIST_HEAD(clk_provider_list);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * This function looks for a parent clock. If there is one, then it
> > + * checks that the provider for this parent clock was initialized, in
> > + * this case the parent clock will be ready.
> > + */
> > +static int parent_ready(struct device_node *np)
> > +{
> > + struct of_phandle_args clkspec;
> > + struct of_clk_provider *provider;
> > + int num_parents;
> > + bool found;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If there is no clock parent, no need to wait for them, then
> > + * we can consider their absence as being ready
> > + */
> > + num_parents = of_count_phandle_with_args(np, "clocks", "#clock-cells");
> > + if (num_parents <= 0)
> > + return 1;
>
> of_clk_get_parent_count() can be used here...
>
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < num_parents; i++) {
> > + if (of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "clocks", "#clock-cells", i,
> > + &clkspec))
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + /* Check if we have such a provider in our array */
> > + found = false;
> > + list_for_each_entry(provider, &of_clk_providers, link) {
> > + if (provider->node == clkspec.np) {
> > + found = true;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!found)
> > + return 0;
> > + }
>
> ...or even better, __of_clk_get_from_provider() could modified to return
> -EPROBE_DEFER if requested provider is not registered and you could
> simply call of_clk_get(np, i) and handle its return value appropriately:
>
> - on !IS_ERR(clk) call clk_put() and continue with iterations,
> - on IS_ERR(clk) && PTR_ERR(clk) == -EPROBE_DEFER return 0 immediately,
> - in any other case end the loop (end of clock specifiers).
>
> This would make CCF even closer to proper handling of provider ordering,
> with a nice side effect of handling deferred probe for platform devices.
>
> > +
> > + return 1;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * of_clk_init() - Scan and init clock providers from the DT
> > * @matches: array of compatible values and init functions for providers.
> > *
> > - * This function scans the device tree for matching clock providers and
> > - * calls their initialization functions
> > + * This function scans the device tree for matching clock providers
> > + * and calls their initialization functions. It also do it by trying
> > + * to follow the dependencies.
> > */
> > void __init of_clk_init(const struct of_device_id *matches)
> > {
> > const struct of_device_id *match;
> > struct device_node *np;
> > + struct clock_provider *clk_provider, *next;
> > + bool is_init_done;
> >
> > if (!matches)
> > matches = &__clk_of_table;
> >
> > for_each_matching_node_and_match(np, matches, &match) {
> > of_clk_init_cb_t clk_init_cb = match->data;
> > - clk_init_cb(np);
> > +
> > +
> > + if (parent_ready(np)) {
> > + /*
> > + * The parent clock is ready or there is no
> > + * clock parent at all, in this case the
> > + * provider can be initialize immediately.
> > + */
> > + clk_init_cb(np);
> > + } else {
> > + /*
> > + * The parent clock is not ready, this
> > + * provider is moved to a list to be
> > + * initialized later
> > + */
> > + struct clock_provider *parent = kzalloc(sizeof(struct clock_provider),
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > +
> > + parent->clk_init_cb = match->data;
> > + parent->np = np;
> > + list_add(&parent->node, &clk_provider_list);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> I wonder if this couldn't be replaced with simply adding all the
> providers to the list first and then proceeding with the loop below to
> handle the registrations.
>
> > +
> > + while (!list_empty(&clk_provider_list)) {
> > + is_init_done = false;
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(clk_provider, next,
> > + &clk_provider_list, node) {
> > + if (parent_ready(clk_provider->np)) {
> > + clk_provider->clk_init_cb(clk_provider->np);
> > + list_del(&clk_provider->node);
> > + kfree(clk_provider);
> > + is_init_done = true;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!is_init_done) {
> > + /*
> > + * We didn't managed to initialize any of the
> > + * remaining providers during the last loop,
> > + * so now we initialize all the remaining ones
> > + * unconditionally in case the clock parent
> > + * was not mandatory
> > + */
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(clk_provider, next,
> > + &clk_provider_list, node) {
> > + clk_provider->clk_init_cb(clk_provider->np);
> > + list_del(&clk_provider->node);
> > + kfree(clk_provider);
>
> Hmm, this is basically the code above repeated without the if. What
> about something like the code snippet below?
>
> bool force = false;
> while (!list_empty(&clk_provider_list)) {
> is_init_done = false;
> list_for_each_entry_safe(clk_provider, next,
> &clk_provider_list, node) {
> if (force || parent_ready(clk_provider->np)) {
> clk_provider->clk_init_cb(clk_provider->np);
> list_del(&clk_provider->node);
> kfree(clk_provider);
> is_init_done = true;
> }
> }
>
> if (!is_init_done)
> force = true;
> }
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
--
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