On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Rabin Vincent
<rabin.vinc...@stericsson.com> wrote:
> When a clock has multiple users, the WARNING on imbalance of
> enable/disable may not show the guilty party since although they may
> have commited the error earlier, the warning is emitted later when some
> other user, presumably innocent, disables the clock.
>
> Provide per-user clock enable/disable accounting and disabler tracking
> in order to help debug these problems.
>
> NOTE: with this patch, clk_get_parent() behaves like clk_get(), i.e. it
> needs to be matched with a clk_put(). Otherwise, memory will leak.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <rabin.vinc...@stericsson.com>
Overall this looks very helpful.
> @@ -504,7 +525,15 @@ void clk_disable(struct clk *clk_user)
> unsigned long flags;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&enable_lock, flags);
> - __clk_disable(clk);
> + if (!WARN(clk_user->enable_count == 0,
> + "incorrect disable clk dev %s con %s last disabler %pF\n",
> + clk_user->dev_id, clk_user->con_id,
> clk_user->last_disable)) {
> +
> + clk_user->last_disable = __builtin_return_address(0);
> + clk_user->enable_count--;
> +
> + __clk_disable(clk);
> + }
It seems as if an unbalanced clk_disable() call is done before any
clk_enable() call something like:
"incorrect disable clk dev foo con bar last disabler (null)"
Then the second WARN() will be triggered in __clk_disable().
Have you tried this usecase?
Maybe we can avoid the confusing warning, I don't know.
No big deal maybe.
Apart from that:
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org>
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
