Message-ID: <ucJ6KSBqdPTxfxUQqLUr9C9RGiQRnY1I@localhost>
Date:   Mon, 07 Nov 2022 20:57:22 +0000
From:   Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@...il.com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
Cc:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
        Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Abel Vesa <abelvesa@...nel.org>,
        Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-actions@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        patches@...nsource.cirrus.com, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 56/65] clk: ingenic: cgu: Switch to determine_rate


Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 05:35:29PM +0000, Aidan MacDonald wrote:
>>
>> Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech> writes:
>>
>> > Hi Paul,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 02:31:20PM +0000, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>> >> Le ven. 4 nov. 2022 à 14:18:13 +0100, Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech> a
>> >> écrit :
>> >> > The Ingenic CGU clocks implements a mux with a set_parent hook, but
>> >> > doesn't provide a determine_rate implementation.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is a bit odd, since set_parent() is there to, as its name implies,
>> >> > change the parent of a clock. However, the most likely candidate to
>> >> > trigger that parent change is a call to clk_set_rate(), with
>> >> > determine_rate() figuring out which parent is the best suited for a
>> >> > given rate.
>> >> >
>> >> > The other trigger would be a call to clk_set_parent(), but it's far less
>> >> > used, and it doesn't look like there's any obvious user for that clock.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, the set_parent hook is effectively unused, possibly because of an
>> >> > oversight. However, it could also be an explicit decision by the
>> >> > original author to avoid any reparenting but through an explicit call to
>> >> > clk_set_parent().
>> >> >
>> >> > The driver does implement round_rate() though, which means that we can
>> >> > change the rate of the clock, but we will never get to change the
>> >> > parent.
>> >> >
>> >> > However, It's hard to tell whether it's been done on purpose or not.
>> >> >
>> >> > Since we'll start mandating a determine_rate() implementation, let's
>> >> > convert the round_rate() implementation to a determine_rate(), which
>> >> > will also make the current behavior explicit. And if it was an
>> >> > oversight, the clock behaviour can be adjusted later on.
>> >>
>> >> So it's partly on purpose, partly because I didn't know about
>> >> .determine_rate.
>> >>
>> >> There's nothing odd about having a lonely .set_parent callback; in my case
>> >> the clocks are parented from the device tree.
>> >>
>> >> Having the clocks driver trigger a parent change when requesting a rate
>> >> change sounds very dangerous, IMHO. My MMC controller can be parented to the
>> >> external 48 MHz oscillator, and if the card requests 50 MHz, it could switch
>> >> to one of the PLLs. That works as long as the PLLs don't change rate, but if
>> >> one is configured as driving the CPU clock, it becomes messy.
>> >> The thing is, the clocks driver has no way to know whether or not it is
>> >> "safe" to use a designated parent.
>> >>
>> >> For that reason, in practice, I never actually want to have a clock
>> >> re-parented - it's almost always a bad idea vs. sticking to the parent clock
>> >> configured in the DTS.
>> >
>> > Yeah, and this is totally fine. But we need to be explicit about it. The
>> > determine_rate implementation I did in all the patches is an exact
>> > equivalent to the round_rate one if there was one. We will never ask to
>> > change the parent.
>> >
>> > Given what you just said, I would suggest to set the
>> > CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT flag as well.
>>
>> Ideally there should be a way for drivers and the device tree to
>> say, "clock X must be driven by clock Y", but the clock framework
>> would be allowed to re-parent clocks freely as long as it doesn't
>> violate any DT or driver constraints.
>
> I'm not really sure what you mean there, sorry. Isn't it what
> assigned-clock-parents/clk_set_parent() at probe, plus a determine_rate
> implementation that would affect best_parent_hw would already provide?

Assigning the parent clock in the DT works once, at boot, but going off
what you wrote in the commit message, if the clock driver has a
.determine_rate() implementation that *can* reparent clocks then it
probably *will* reparent them, and the DT assignment will be lost.

What I'm suggesting is a runtime constraint that the clock subsystem
would enforce, and actively prevent drivers from changing the parent.
Either explicitly with clk_set_parent() or due to .determine_rate().

That way you could write a .determine_rate() implementation that *can*
select a better parent, but if the DT applies a constraint to fix the
clock to a particular parent, the clock subsystem will force that parent
to be used so you can be sure the clock is never reparented by accident.

>> That way allowing reparenting doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing
>> thing, and it doesn't need to be decided at the clock driver level
>> with special flags.
>
> Like I said, the default implementation is already working to what you
> suggested if I understood properly. However, this has never been tested
> for any of the drivers in that series so I don't want to introduce (and
> debug ;)) regressions in all those drivers that were not setting any
> constraint but never actually tested their reparenting code.
>
> So that series is strictly equivalent to what you had before, it's just
> explicit now.
>
> If you find that some other decision make sense for your driver in
> particular cases, feel free to change it. I barely know most of these
> platforms, so I won't be able to make that decision (and test it)
> unfortunately.
>
> Maxime

That's OK, I didn't review the patch, I'm just making a general
suggestion. :)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists