On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 04:59:57PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:22:14AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:55:51AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> > > On 01/29, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> > > > When converting a driver to managed resources it is desirable to be >> > > > able to >> > > > manage all resources in the same fashion. This change allows managing >> > > > clocks in the same way we manage many other resources. >> > > >> > > Can you please add 'managing clock prepared and enabled state in >> > > the same way'? >> > > >> > > The current wording makes it sound like we don't have >> > > devm_clk_get() when we do. >> > > >> > > > >> > > > This adds the following managed APIs: >> > > > >> > > > - devm_clk_prepare()/devm_clk_unprepare(); >> > > > - devm_clk_prepare_enable()/devm_clk_disable_unprepare(). >> > > >> > > Wouldn't this be preceded by a devm_clk_get() call? Wouldn't it >> > > be even shorter to have the APIs >> > > >> > > devm_clk_get_and_prepare()/devm_clk_unprepare_and_put() >> > > devm_clk_get_and_prepare_enable()/devm_clk_disable_unprepare_and_put() >> > > >> > > instead? >> > > >> > In many cases I see >> > >> > devm_clk_get(clk1); >> > devm_clk_get(clk2); >> > clk_prepare_enable(clk1); >> > clk_prepare_enable(clk2); >> > >> > Sometimes the calls are intertwined with setting the clock rates. >> > >> > devm_clk_get(clk); >> > clk_set_rate(clk, rate); >> > clk_prepare_enable(clk); >> > >> > Maybe the additional calls make sense; I can imagine they would. >> > However, I personally would be a bit wary of changing the initialization >> > order of multi-clock initializations, and I am not sure how a single call >> > could address setting the rate ([devm_]clk_get_setrate_prepare_enable() >> > seems like a bit too much). >> > >> > [ On a side note, why is there no clk_get_prepare_enable() and >> > clk_get_prepare() ? Maybe it would be better to introduce those >> > together with the matching devm_ functions in a separate patch >> > if they are useful. ] >> > >> > > Is there any other subsystem that has similar functionality? >> > > Regulators? GPIOs? Resets? I'm just curious if those subsystems >> > > also need similar changes. >> > > >> > Ultimately yes, and most already do. If I recall correctly, I tried to >> > introduce devm_ functions for regulators some time ago, but that was >> > rejected with the comment that it would invite misuse. At the time >> > I accepted that; today my reaction would be to counter that pretty much >> > everything can be misused, and that the potential for misuse should not >> > penaltize all the valid use cases. >> >> I think we should ping Mark again. The only thing we are achieving is >> that everyone is using devm_add_action_or_reset() with wrappers around >> regulator_put(). >> > regulator_get() has an equivalent devm_regulator_get(). Maybe it was since > added, or I was thinking about a different function.
I think we also need devm_regulator_enable(). Thanks. -- Dmitry
