| Message ID | 20130206.081048.71241785637713947.hdoyu@nvidia.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wednesday 06 February 2013 11:40 AM, Hiroshi Doyu wrote: > Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@nvidia.com> wrote @ Wed, 6 Feb 2013 03:55:00 +0100: > >>>> No, clk_ops depends on the clocks you are using. There could be a clock >>>> with mux and gate while another one with mux and div. >>> You are right. What about the following? We don't have to have similar >>> copy of clk_composite_ops for each instances. >> Clock framework takes decision depending on the ops availability and it >> does not know if the clock is mux or gate. >> >> For example, >> >> if (clk->ops->enable) { >> ret = clk->ops->enable(clk->hw); >> if (ret) { >> __clk_disable(clk->parent); >> return ret; >> } >> } >> >> in above case if clk_composite does not have gate clock then as per your >> suggestion if it returns error value then it will fail and it is wrong. > Ok, now I understand. Thank you for explanation. > > We always need to allocate clk_composite_ops for each clk_composite, > right? If so what about having "struct clk_ops ops" in "struct > clk_composite"? > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c b/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c > index f30fb4b..5240e24 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c > @@ -129,20 +129,13 @@ struct clk *clk_register_composite(struct device *dev, const char *name, > pr_err("%s: could not allocate composite clk\n", __func__); > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > } > + clk_composite_ops = &composite->ops; > > init.name = name; > init.flags = flags | CLK_IS_BASIC; > init.parent_names = parent_names; > init.num_parents = num_parents; > > - /* allocate the clock ops */ > - clk_composite_ops = kzalloc(sizeof(*clk_composite_ops), GFP_KERNEL); > - if (!clk_composite_ops) { > - pr_err("%s: could not allocate clk ops\n", __func__); > - kfree(composite); > - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > - } > - > if (mux_hw && mux_ops) { > if (!mux_ops->get_parent || !mux_ops->set_parent) { > clk = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > @@ -202,7 +195,6 @@ struct clk *clk_register_composite(struct device *dev, const char *name, > return clk; > > err: > - kfree(clk_composite_ops); > kfree(composite); > return clk; > } > diff --git a/include/linux/clk-provider.h b/include/linux/clk-provider.h > index f0ac818..bb5d36a 100644 > --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h > +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h > @@ -346,6 +346,8 @@ struct clk_composite { > const struct clk_ops *mux_ops; > const struct clk_ops *div_ops; > const struct clk_ops *gate_ops; > + > + const struct clk_ops ops; > }; > > struct clk *clk_register_composite(struct device *dev, const char *name, This will work, but there is no harm in allocating dynamically. What is preferred? > >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c b/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c >>> index f30fb4b..8f88805 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c >>> @@ -27,6 +27,9 @@ static u8 clk_composite_get_parent(struct clk_hw *hw) >>> const struct clk_ops *mux_ops = composite->mux_ops; >>> struct clk_hw *mux_hw = composite->mux_hw; >>> >>> + if (!mux_hw->clk) >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + >>> mux_hw->clk = hw->clk; >> It is wrong. > Will the above "mux_hw->clk = hw->clk" be removed from the original? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@nvidia.com> wrote @ Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:52:54 +0100: > > diff --git a/include/linux/clk-provider.h b/include/linux/clk-provider.h > > index f0ac818..bb5d36a 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h > > +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h > > @@ -346,6 +346,8 @@ struct clk_composite { > > const struct clk_ops *mux_ops; > > const struct clk_ops *div_ops; > > const struct clk_ops *gate_ops; > > + > > + const struct clk_ops ops; > > }; > > > > struct clk *clk_register_composite(struct device *dev, const char *name, > > This will work, but there is no harm in allocating dynamically. What is > preferred? If we've already know that this "ops" is necessary per "struct clk_composite" in advance, there's no point to allocate "clk_composite" and "ops" separately. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wednesday 06 of February 2013 15:22:54 Prashant Gaikwad wrote: > On Wednesday 06 February 2013 11:40 AM, Hiroshi Doyu wrote: > > Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@nvidia.com> wrote @ Wed, 6 Feb 2013 03:55:00 +0100: > >>>> No, clk_ops depends on the clocks you are using. There could be a > >>>> clock > >>>> with mux and gate while another one with mux and div. > >>> > >>> You are right. What about the following? We don't have to have > >>> similar > >>> copy of clk_composite_ops for each instances. > >> > >> Clock framework takes decision depending on the ops availability and > >> it > >> does not know if the clock is mux or gate. > >> > >> For example, > >> > >> if (clk->ops->enable) { > >> > >> ret = clk->ops->enable(clk->hw); > >> if (ret) { > >> > >> __clk_disable(clk->parent); > >> return ret; > >> > >> } > >> > >> } > >> > >> in above case if clk_composite does not have gate clock then as per > >> your suggestion if it returns error value then it will fail and it > >> is wrong.> > > Ok, now I understand. Thank you for explanation. > > > > We always need to allocate clk_composite_ops for each clk_composite, > > right? If so what about having "struct clk_ops ops" in "struct > > clk_composite"? > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c b/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c > > index f30fb4b..5240e24 100644 > > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c > > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c > > @@ -129,20 +129,13 @@ struct clk *clk_register_composite(struct device > > *dev, const char *name,> > > pr_err("%s: could not allocate composite clk\n", > > __func__); > > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > > > } > > > > + clk_composite_ops = &composite->ops; > > > > init.name = name; > > init.flags = flags | CLK_IS_BASIC; > > init.parent_names = parent_names; > > init.num_parents = num_parents; > > > > - /* allocate the clock ops */ > > - clk_composite_ops = kzalloc(sizeof(*clk_composite_ops), > > GFP_KERNEL); - if (!clk_composite_ops) { > > - pr_err("%s: could not allocate clk ops\n", __func__); > > - kfree(composite); > > - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > - } > > - > > > > if (mux_hw && mux_ops) { > > > > if (!mux_ops->get_parent || !mux_ops->set_parent) { > > > > clk = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > > > @@ -202,7 +195,6 @@ struct clk *clk_register_composite(struct device > > *dev, const char *name,> > > return clk; > > > > err: > > - kfree(clk_composite_ops); > > > > kfree(composite); > > return clk; > > > > } > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/clk-provider.h > > b/include/linux/clk-provider.h index f0ac818..bb5d36a 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h > > +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h > > @@ -346,6 +346,8 @@ struct clk_composite { > > > > const struct clk_ops *mux_ops; > > const struct clk_ops *div_ops; > > const struct clk_ops *gate_ops; > > > > + > > + const struct clk_ops ops; > > > > }; > > > > struct clk *clk_register_composite(struct device *dev, const char > > *name, > This will work, but there is no harm in allocating dynamically. What is > preferred? IMHO it is always better to allocate one bigger structure than several smaller if they are always needed together and one cannot exist without others. Best regards,
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c b/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c index f30fb4b..5240e24 100644 --- a/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c @@ -129,20 +129,13 @@ struct clk *clk_register_composite(struct device *dev, const char *name, pr_err("%s: could not allocate composite clk\n", __func__); return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); } + clk_composite_ops = &composite->ops; init.name = name; init.flags = flags | CLK_IS_BASIC; init.parent_names = parent_names; init.num_parents = num_parents; - /* allocate the clock ops */ - clk_composite_ops = kzalloc(sizeof(*clk_composite_ops), GFP_KERNEL); - if (!clk_composite_ops) { - pr_err("%s: could not allocate clk ops\n", __func__); - kfree(composite); - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); - } - if (mux_hw && mux_ops) { if (!mux_ops->get_parent || !mux_ops->set_parent) { clk = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); @@ -202,7 +195,6 @@ struct clk *clk_register_composite(struct device *dev, const char *name, return clk; err: - kfree(clk_composite_ops); kfree(composite); return clk; } diff --git a/include/linux/clk-provider.h b/include/linux/clk-provider.h index f0ac818..bb5d36a 100644 --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h @@ -346,6 +346,8 @@ struct clk_composite { const struct clk_ops *mux_ops; const struct clk_ops *div_ops; const struct clk_ops *gate_ops; + + const struct clk_ops ops; }; struct clk *clk_register_composite(struct device *dev, const char *name,