On 09/22/2011 03:26 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/clk.h b/include/linux/clk.h
index 1d37f42..d6ae10b 100644
--- a/include/linux/clk.h
+++ b/include/linux/clk.h
+#ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_CLK
+
+struct clk_hw {
+       struct clk *clk;
+};
+
+/**
+ * struct clk_hw_ops -  Callback operations for hardware clocks; these are to
+ * be provided by the clock implementation, and will be called by drivers
+ * through the clk_* API.
+ *
+ * @prepare:   Prepare the clock for enabling. This must not return until
+ *             the clock is fully prepared, and it's safe to call clk_enable.
+ *             This callback is intended to allow clock implementations to
+ *             do any initialisation that may sleep. Called with
+ *             prepare_lock held.
+ *
+ * @unprepare: Release the clock from its prepared state. This will typically
+ *             undo any work done in the @prepare callback. Called with
+ *             prepare_lock held.
+ *
+ * @enable:    Enable the clock atomically. This must not return until the
+ *             clock is generating a valid clock signal, usable by consumer
+ *             devices. Called with enable_lock held. This function must not
+ *             sleep.
+ *
+ * @disable:   Disable the clock atomically. Called with enable_lock held.
+ *             This function must not sleep.
+ *
+ * @recalc_rate        Recalculate the rate of this clock, by quering hardware
+ *             and/or the clock's parent. Called with the global clock mutex
+ *             held. Optional, but recommended - if this op is not set,
+ *             clk_get_rate will return 0.
+ *
+ * @get_parent Query the parent of this clock; for clocks with multiple
+ *             possible parents, query the hardware for the current
+ *             parent. Currently only called when the clock is first
+ *             registered.
+ *
+ * The clk_enable/clk_disable and clk_prepare/clk_unprepare pairs allow
+ * implementations to split any work between atomic (enable) and sleepable
+ * (prepare) contexts.  If a clock requires sleeping code to be turned on, this
+ * should be done in clk_prepare. Switching that will not sleep should be done
+ * in clk_enable.
+ *
+ * Typically, drivers will call clk_prepare when a clock may be needed later
+ * (eg. when a device is opened), and clk_enable when the clock is actually
+ * required (eg. from an interrupt). Note that clk_prepare *must* have been
+ * called before clk_enable.
   */
+struct clk_hw_ops {
+       int             (*prepare)(struct clk_hw *);
+       void            (*unprepare)(struct clk_hw *);
+       int             (*enable)(struct clk_hw *);
+       void            (*disable)(struct clk_hw *);
+       unsigned long   (*recalc_rate)(struct clk_hw *);
+       long            (*round_rate)(struct clk_hw *, unsigned long);
+       struct clk *    (*get_parent)(struct clk_hw *);
+};

I would like to understand the need for recalc rate if that's something that we want to go into the common framework (even if it's optional). I have mostly heard only second hand explanations of the need for recalc_rate(), so I might not have the full picture. But for all the cases that I can think of, recalc_rate seems like a paradox.

If recalc_rate() is used to make sure the "current rate" of a "clock A" is always known even if it's parent "clock B"'s rate is changed, then it also means that the rate of "clock A" can change without clk_set_rate(clock A, new rate). That in turn means that the clk_get_rate() just gives the instantaneous snapshot of the rate. So, any use of clk_get_rate(clock A) for anything other than printing/logging the return value is broken code. In which case, do we really care for recalc_rate()? We could just return the rate that it was set to when clk_set_rate() was called and call it a day or return 0 for such clocks to indicate that the clock rate is "unknown".

The whole concept of trying to recalculate the rate for a clock makes me feel uneasy since it promotes misunderstanding the behavior of the clock and writing bad code based on that misunderstanding.

I would like to hear to real usecases before I propose some alternatives that I have in mind.

Thanks,
Saravana

--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev

Reply via email to