[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <086CDFC4-A9EE-40C7-89BB-D3B8CBFA01EA@collabora.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 09:13:59 -0300
From: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: clk: use the type-state pattern
> On 30 Jul 2025, at 05:03, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue Jul 29, 2025 at 11:38 PM CEST, Daniel Almeida wrote:
>> In light of the Regulator abstraction that was recently merged, switch this
>> abstraction to use the type-state pattern instead. It solves both a) and b)
>> by establishing a number of states and the valid ways to transition between
>> them. It also automatically undoes any call to clk_get(), clk_prepare() and
>> clk_enable() as applicable on drop(), so users do not have to do anything
>> special before Clk goes out of scope.
>
> That's a great improvement, thanks! Some questions / comments below.
>
>> /// A reference-counted clock.
>> ///
>> /// Rust abstraction for the C [`struct clk`].
>> ///
>> + /// A [`Clk`] instance represents a clock that can be in one of several
>> + /// states: [`Unprepared`], [`Prepared`], or [`Enabled`].
>> + ///
>> + /// No action needs to be taken when a [`Clk`] is dropped. The calls to
>> + /// `clk_unprepare()` and `clk_disable()` will be placed as applicable.
>> + ///
>> + /// An optional [`Clk`] is treated just like a regular [`Clk`], but its
>> + /// inner `struct clk` pointer is `NULL`. This interfaces correctly with the
>> + /// C API and also exposes all the methods of a regular [`Clk`] to users.
>> + ///
>> /// # Invariants
>> ///
>> /// A [`Clk`] instance holds either a pointer to a valid [`struct clk`] created by the C
>> @@ -99,20 +160,39 @@ mod common_clk {
>> /// Instances of this type are reference-counted. Calling [`Clk::get`] ensures that the
>> /// allocation remains valid for the lifetime of the [`Clk`].
>> ///
>> - /// ## Examples
>> + /// The [`Prepared`] state is associated with a single count of
>> + /// `clk_prepare()`, and the [`Enabled`] state is associated with a single
>> + /// count of `clk_enable()`, and the [`Enabled`] state is associated with a
>> + /// single count of `clk_prepare` and `clk_enable()`.
>> + ///
>> + /// All states are associated with a single count of `clk_get()`.
>> + ///
>> + /// # Examples
>> ///
>> /// The following example demonstrates how to obtain and configure a clock for a device.
>> ///
>> /// ```
>> /// use kernel::c_str;
>> - /// use kernel::clk::{Clk, Hertz};
>> + /// use kernel::clk::{Clk, Enabled, Hertz, Unprepared, Prepared};
>> /// use kernel::device::Device;
>> /// use kernel::error::Result;
>> ///
>> /// fn configure_clk(dev: &Device) -> Result {
>> - /// let clk = Clk::get(dev, Some(c_str!("apb_clk")))?;
>> + /// // The fastest way is to use a version of `Clk::get` for the desired
>> + /// // state, i.e.:
>> + /// let clk: Clk<Enabled> = Clk::<Enabled>::get(dev, Some(c_str!("apb_clk")))?;
>
> Given that this is a driver API, why do we allow obtaining and configuring
> clocks of any device, i.e. also unbound devices?
>
> I think Clk::<T>::get() should take a &Device<Bound> instead.
Ah, this was a question I had, but that I forgot to mention here.
The same can probably be said of the regulator series? i.e.:
impl Regulator<Disabled> {
/// Obtains a [`Regulator`] instance from the system.
pub fn get(dev: &Device, name: &CStr) -> Result<Self> {
Regulator::get_internal(dev, name)
}
>
>> - /// clk.prepare_enable()?;
>> + /// // Any other state is also possible, e.g.:
>> + /// let clk: Clk<Prepared> = Clk::<Prepared>::get(dev, Some(c_str!("apb_clk")))?;
>> + ///
>> + /// // Later:
>> + /// let clk: Clk<Enabled> = clk.enable().map_err(|error| {
>> + /// error.error
>> + /// })?;
>> + ///
>> + /// // Note that error.clk is the original `clk` if the operation
>> + /// // failed. It is provided as a convenience so that the operation may be
>> + /// // retried in case of errors.
>> ///
>> /// let expected_rate = Hertz::from_ghz(1);
>> ///
>> @@ -120,104 +200,172 @@ mod common_clk {
>> /// clk.set_rate(expected_rate)?;
>> /// }
>> ///
>> - /// clk.disable_unprepare();
>> + /// // Nothing is needed here. The drop implementation will undo any
>> + /// // operations as appropriate.
>> + /// Ok(())
>> + /// }
>> + ///
>> + /// fn shutdown(dev: &Device, clk: Clk<Enabled>) -> Result {
>
> You don't need the dev argument here.
>
>> + /// // The states can be traversed "in the reverse order" as well:
>> + /// let clk: Clk<Prepared> = clk.disable().map_err(|error| {
>> + /// error.error
>> + /// })?;
>> + ///
>> + /// let clk: Clk<Unprepared> = clk.unprepare();
>
> I know you want to showcase the type state, yet I don't know if we should
> explicitly declare the type if not necessary. People will likely just copy
> things. Maybe a comment is better to emphasize it?
Ok
>
>> + ///
>> /// Ok(())
>> /// }
>> /// ```
>> ///
>> /// [`struct clk`]: https://docs.kernel.org/driver-api/clk.html
>> #[repr(transparent)]
>> - pub struct Clk(*mut bindings::clk);
>> + pub struct Clk<T: ClkState> {
>> + inner: *mut bindings::clk,
>> + _phantom: core::marker::PhantomData<T>,
>> + }
>
> <snip>
>
>> + impl<T: ClkState> Drop for Clk<T> {
>> + fn drop(&mut self) {
>> + if T::DISABLE_ON_DROP {
>> + // SAFETY: By the type invariants, self.as_raw() is a valid argument for
>> + // [`clk_disable`].
>> + unsafe { bindings::clk_disable(self.as_raw()) };
>> + }
>> +
>> + if T::UNPREPARE_ON_DROP {
>> + // SAFETY: By the type invariants, self.as_raw() is a valid argument for
>> + // [`clk_unprepare`].
>> + unsafe { bindings::clk_unprepare(self.as_raw()) };
>> + }
>
> Nice! I like this cleanup. However, don't you still need to call clk_put() to
> drop the reference count?
Right, clk_put() was totally forgotten.
>
> Also, given that this is a device resource, don't we want to take it away from
> drivers once the corresponding device has been unbound, i.e. use Devres?
Do you mean to have the get() functions return Devres<Clk>?
Also, is this applicable for Regulator as well?
>
>> }
>> }
>> }
>
— Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists