Message-ID: <bc338f11-9867-2394-ceaa-99314ff67660@sholland.org>
Date:   Tue, 28 Sep 2021 22:54:26 -0500
From:   Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
Cc:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] clk: sunxi-ng: Add a RTC CCU driver

Hi Maxime,

Thanks for your reply.

On 9/28/21 4:06 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 02:46:39AM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
>> On 9/9/21 3:45 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 10:21:13AM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/21 9:50 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>>> And since we can register all those clocks at device probe time, we
>>>>> don't really need to split the driver in two (and especially in two
>>>>> different places). The only obstacle to this after your previous series
>>>>> is that we don't have of_sunxi_ccu_probe / devm_sunxi_ccu_probe
>>>>> functions public, but that can easily be fixed by moving their
>>>>> definition to include/linux/clk/sunxi-ng.h
>>>>
>>>> Where are you thinking the clock definitions would go? We don't export
>>>> any of those structures (ccu_mux, ccu_common) or macros
>>>> (SUNXI_CCU_GATE_DATA) in a public header either.
>>>
>>> Ah, right...
>>>
>>>> Would you want to export those? That seems like a lot of churn. Or would
>>>> we put the CCU descriptions in drivers/clk/sunxi-ng and export a
>>>> function that the RTC driver can call? (Or some other idea?)
>>>
>>> I guess we could export it. There's some fairly big headers in
>>> include/linux/clk already (tegra and ti), it's not uAPI and we do have
>>> reasons to do so, so I guess it's fine.
>>>
>>> I'd like to avoid having two drivers for the same device if possible,
>>> especially in two separate places. This creates some confusion since the
>>> general expectation is that there's only one driver per device. There's
>>> also the fact that this could lead to subtle bugs since the probe order
>>> is the link order (or module loading).
>>
>> I don't think there can be two "struct device"s for a single OF node.
> 
> That's not what I meant, there's indeed a single of_node for a single
> struct device. If we dig a bit into the core framework, the most likely
> scenario is that we would register both the RTC and clock driver at
> module_init, and with the device already created with its of_node set
> during the initial DT parsing.
> 
> We register our platform driver using module_platform_driver, which
> expands to calling driver_register() at module_init(), setting the
> driver bus to the platform_bus in the process (in
> __platform_driver_register()).
> 
> After some sanity check, driver_register() calls bus_add_driver(), which
> will call driver_attach() if drivers_autoprobe is set (which is the
> default, set into bus_register()).
> 
> driver_attach() will, for each device on the platform bus, call
> __driver_attach(). If there's a match between that device and our driver
> (which is evaluated by platform_match() in our case), we'll call our
> driver probe with that device through driver_probe_device(),
> __driver_probe_device() and finally really_probe().
> 
> However, at no point in time there's any check about whether that device
> has already been bound to a driver, nor does it create a new device for
> each driver.

I would expect this to hit the:

	if (dev->driver)
		return -EBUSY;

in __driver_probe_device(), or fail the "if (!dev->driver)" check in
__driver_attach() for the async case, once the first driver is bound.

> So this means that, if you have two drivers that match the
> same device (like our clock and RTC drivers), you'll have both probe
> being called with the same device, and the probe order will be defined
> by the link order. Worse, they would share the same driver_data, with
> each driver not being aware of the other. This is incredibly fragile,
> and hard to notice since it goes against the usual expectations.
> 
>> So if the CCU part is in drivers/clk/sunxi-ng, the CCU "probe"
>> function would have to be called from the RTC driver.
> 
> No, it would be called by the core directly if there's a compatible to
> match.
> 
>> Since there has to be cooperation anyway, I don't think there would be
>> any ordering problems.
> 
> My initial point was that, with a direct function call, it's both
> deterministic and obvious.

I believe I did what you are suggesting for v2. From patch 7:

--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-sun6i.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-sun6i.c
@@ -683,6 +684,10 @@ static int sun6i_rtc_probe(struct platform_device
*pdev)
 		chip->base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
 		if (IS_ERR(chip->base))
 			return PTR_ERR(chip->base);
+
+		ret = sun6i_rtc_ccu_probe(&pdev->dev, chip->base);
+		if (ret)
+			return ret;
 	}

 	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, chip);

>>> And synchronizing access to registers between those two drivers will be
>>> hard, while we could just share the same spin lock between the RTC and
>>> clock drivers if they are instanciated in the same place.
>>
>> While the RTC driver currently shares a spinlock between the clock part
>> and the RTC part, there isn't actually any overlap in register usage
>> between the two. So there doesn't need to be any synchronization.
> 
> I know, but this was more of a social problem than a technical one. Each
> contributor and reviewer in the future will have to know or remember
> that it's there, and make sure that it's still the case after any change
> they make or review.
> 
> This is again a fairly fragile assumption.

Yeah, I agree that having a lock that is only sometimes safe to use with
certain registers is quite fragile.

Would splitting the spinlock in rtc-sun6i.c into "losc_lock" (for the
clock provider) and "alarm_lock" (for the RTC driver) make this
distinction clear enough?

Eventually, I want to split up the struct between the clock provider and
RTC driver so it's clear which members belong to whom, and there's no
ugly global pointer use. Maybe I should do this first?

Regards,
Samuel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists