linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/4] of/clk: Register clocks suitable for Runtime PM with the PM core

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: <CAMuHMdXbJrnNPyPmD-rcGN-M4ybFtrS3FCuvegJue1Pe-ae8SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 May 2014 15:41:11 +0200
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/4] of/clk: Register clocks suitable for Runtime PM
 with the PM core

Hi Grant,

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:54:37 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
>> > I also don't like that it tries to set up every clock, but there is no
>> > guarantee that the driver will even use it. I would rather see this
>> > behaviour linked into the function that obtains the clock at driver
>> > .probe() time. That way it can handle deferred probe correctly and it
>> > only sets up clocks that are actually used by the driver.
>>
>> Not every clock. Only the clocks that are advertised by the clock driver as
>> being suitable for runtime_pm management. These are typically module
>> clocks, that must be enabled for the module to work. The driver doesn't
>> always want to handle these explicitly.
>
> Help me out here becasue I don't understand how that works with this
> patch set. From my, admittedly naive, reading it looks like the setup is
> being done at device creation time, but if the driver (or module) gets
> to declare which clocks need to be enabled in order to work, then that
> information is not available at device creation time.

Setup is indeed done at registration time. Note the check calling
clk_may_runtime_pm(), which is introduced in "[PATCH/RFC 1/4] clk: Add
CLK_RUNTIME_PM and clk_may_runtime_pm()".

Clock drivers are initialized much earlier, so they can set the CLK_RUNTIME_PM
flag for suitable clocks before platform devices are created from DT, cfr. the
example for shmobile MSTP clocks in "[PATCH/RFC 4/4] clk: shmobile: mstp:
Set CLK_RUNTIME_PM flag".

I hope this makes it clear.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/