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: <CACxGe6sy-fumkNPRcQqB8G4so85dHW_5pZSv+cQDqzJfoneZ+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 May 2014 14:56:08 +0100
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
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

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> 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".

This is where I have issue. You're *assuming* clock drivers are
initialized much earlier. That is not guaranteed. It is perfectly
valid for clocks to be set up by a normal device driver, just like for
interrupt controllers or gpio controllers.

g.
--
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/