| Message ID | 20190603132252.14012-2-nsekhar@ti.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add PCIe root complex support for AM654x SoC | expand |
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 14:23, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> wrote: > > Add support for clk_is_match() which is required to > know if two clock pointers point to the same exact > physical clock. > > Also add a unit test for the new API. > > Reviewed-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com> > Signed-off-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> > --- > drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > include/clk.h | 13 +++++++++++++ > test/dm/clk.c | 1 + > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+) Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 06:52:46PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote: > Add support for clk_is_match() which is required to > know if two clock pointers point to the same exact > physical clock. > > Also add a unit test for the new API. > > Reviewed-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com> > Signed-off-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> > --- > drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > include/clk.h | 13 +++++++++++++ > test/dm/clk.c | 1 + > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+) This test currently fails in sandbox, please address, thanks!
Hi Tom, On 27/07/19 7:18 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 06:52:46PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote: > >> Add support for clk_is_match() which is required to >> know if two clock pointers point to the same exact >> physical clock. >> >> Also add a unit test for the new API. >> >> Reviewed-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com> >> Signed-off-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> >> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> >> --- >> drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >> include/clk.h | 13 +++++++++++++ >> test/dm/clk.c | 1 + >> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+) > > This test currently fails in sandbox, please address, thanks! Do you have this patch applied? https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1130714/ The test had passed for me when I submitted the patches. Later on I discovered the issue the patch above fixes (on actual hardware). This might be the same thing you are seeing on sandbox too. Thanks, Sekhar
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 02:43:13PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 27/07/19 7:18 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 06:52:46PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote: > > > >> Add support for clk_is_match() which is required to > >> know if two clock pointers point to the same exact > >> physical clock. > >> > >> Also add a unit test for the new API. > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> > >> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> > >> --- > >> drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > >> include/clk.h | 13 +++++++++++++ > >> test/dm/clk.c | 1 + > >> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > This test currently fails in sandbox, please address, thanks! > > Do you have this patch applied? > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1130714/ > > The test had passed for me when I submitted the patches. Later on I > discovered the issue the patch above fixes (on actual hardware). > > This might be the same thing you are seeing on sandbox too. Yes, that patch is applied (I just re-checked), thanks!
On 29/07/19 5:21 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 02:43:13PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 27/07/19 7:18 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 06:52:46PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>> >>>> Add support for clk_is_match() which is required to >>>> know if two clock pointers point to the same exact >>>> physical clock. >>>> >>>> Also add a unit test for the new API. >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >>>> include/clk.h | 13 +++++++++++++ >>>> test/dm/clk.c | 1 + >>>> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+) >>> >>> This test currently fails in sandbox, please address, thanks! >> >> Do you have this patch applied? >> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1130714/ >> >> The test had passed for me when I submitted the patches. Later on I >> discovered the issue the patch above fixes (on actual hardware). >> >> This might be the same thing you are seeing on sandbox too. > > Yes, that patch is applied (I just re-checked), thanks! Tom, this was a real issue. I sent a v3. Not sure how it passed when I originally added the unit test. Anyway.. Thanks, Sekhar
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c b/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c index 79b3b0494c65..823be2bcb624 100644 --- a/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c @@ -453,6 +453,19 @@ int clk_disable_bulk(struct clk_bulk *bulk) return 0; } +bool clk_is_match(const struct clk *p, const struct clk *q) +{ + /* trivial case: identical struct clk's or both NULL */ + if (p == q) + return true; + + /* same device, id and data */ + if (p->dev == q->dev && p->id == q->id && p->data == q->data) + return true; + + return false; +} + UCLASS_DRIVER(clk) = { .id = UCLASS_CLK, .name = "clk", diff --git a/include/clk.h b/include/clk.h index d24e99713a35..e657da038398 100644 --- a/include/clk.h +++ b/include/clk.h @@ -309,6 +309,18 @@ int clk_disable(struct clk *clk); */ int clk_disable_bulk(struct clk_bulk *bulk); +/** + * clk_is_match - check if two clk's point to the same hardware clock + * @p: clk compared against q + * @q: clk compared against p + * + * Returns true if the two struct clk pointers both point to the same hardware + * clock node. + * + * Returns false otherwise. Note that two NULL clks are treated as matching. + */ +bool clk_is_match(const struct clk *p, const struct clk *q); + int soc_clk_dump(void); /** @@ -321,4 +333,5 @@ static inline bool clk_valid(struct clk *clk) { return !!clk->dev; } + #endif diff --git a/test/dm/clk.c b/test/dm/clk.c index f301ecbb459d..8468fd45d464 100644 --- a/test/dm/clk.c +++ b/test/dm/clk.c @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ static int dm_test_clk_base(struct unit_test_state *uts) /* Get the same clk port in 2 different ways and compare */ ut_assertok(clk_get_by_index(dev, 1, &clk_method1)); ut_assertok(clk_get_by_index_nodev(dev_ofnode(dev), 1, &clk_method2)); + ut_assertok(clk_is_match(&clk_method1, &clk_method2)); ut_asserteq(clk_method1.id, clk_method2.id); return 0;