[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0db752d31016823ccd3799925255a74a.sboyd@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:58:18 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay <devnull+forbidden405.outlook.com@...nel.org>, forbidden405@...look.com
Cc: linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@...look.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] clk: set initial best mux parent to current parent when determining rate
Quoting Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay (2024-02-23 09:18:52)
> From: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@...look.com>
>
> Originally, the initial clock rate is hardcoded to 0, this can lead to
> some problem when setting a very small rate with CLK_MUX_ROUND_NEAREST.
Did you mean CLK_MUX_ROUND_CLOSEST?
>
> For example, if the lowest possible rate privided by the mux is 1000Hz,
s/privided/provided/
> setting a rate below 500Hz will fail, because no clock can provide a
> better rate than the non-existant 0. But it should succeed with 1000Hz
> being set.
>
> Setting the initial best parent to current parent could solve this bug
> very well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@...look.com>
> ---
> This is actually a v2 of [1], but seems too simple to have a unittest.
> It's tested in a mmc host driver.
It's not too simple for a unittest.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20230421-clk-v3-1-9ff79e7e7fed@outlook.com/
In that thread I asked you to please Cc Maxime. Please do that.
> ---
> drivers/clk/clk.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> index 2253c154a824..d98cebd7ff03 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> @@ -649,6 +649,10 @@ int clk_mux_determine_rate_flags(struct clk_hw *hw,
>
> /* find the parent that can provide the fastest rate <= rate */
> num_parents = core->num_parents;
> + if (core->parent) {
> + best_parent = core->parent;
> + best = clk_core_get_rate_nolock(best_parent);
> + }
Is the problem that we're not using abs_diff()?
----8<----
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
index a3bc7fb90d0f..91023345595f 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ static bool mux_is_better_rate(unsigned long rate, unsigned long now,
unsigned long best, unsigned long flags)
{
if (flags & CLK_MUX_ROUND_CLOSEST)
- return abs(now - rate) < abs(best - rate);
+ return abs_diff(now, rate) < abs_diff(best, rate);
return now <= rate && now > best;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists