[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250610120351.GQ8020@e132581.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:03:51 +0100
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
coresight@...ts.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] coresight: Avoid enable programming clock
duplicately
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 04:09:32PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>
> On 09/06/25 10:44 PM, Leo Yan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 05:58:34PM +0100, Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>> static inline struct clk *coresight_get_enable_apb_pclk(struct device *dev)
> >>> {
> >>> - struct clk *pclk;
> >>> + struct clk *pclk = NULL;
> >>> - pclk = devm_clk_get_enabled(dev, "apb_pclk");
> >>> - if (IS_ERR(pclk))
> >>> - pclk = devm_clk_get_enabled(dev, "apb");
> >>> + if (!dev_is_amba(dev)) {
> >>> + pclk = devm_clk_get_enabled(dev, "apb_pclk");
> >>> + if (IS_ERR(pclk))
> >>> + pclk = devm_clk_get_enabled(dev, "apb");
> >>
> >> AMBA driver doesn't handle "apb" clock ? So we may need to retain that here
> >> ?
> >
> > Here checks the condition "if (!dev_is_amba(dev))", it means the device
> > is not an AMBA device (e.g., a platform device), the APB clock is
> > enabled at here.
>
> Just exit early for AMBA devices when 'pclk' clock is still NULL ?
>
> if (dev_is_amba(dev))
> return pclk;
If it is an AMBA device, we should return a NULL pointer, as this
indicates that the APB clock is not managed by the CoreSight driver.
In this patch, I did not perform any refactoring and simply made a
straightforward changed. The refactoring is done in the patch 07, as
you suggested, where the function is refined as:
if (dev_is_amba(dev)) {
return NULL;
} else {
pclk = devm_clk_get_enabled(dev, "apb_pclk");
...
}
Would it be acceptable to keep this patch as it is?
Thanks,
Leo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists