Hi Paul,
On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 10:33:54AM +0000, Paul Cercueil wrote:
Hi Maxime,
Le ven. 4 nov. 2022 à 15:59:46 +0100, Maxime Ripard maxime@cerno.tech a écrit :
Hi Paul,
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 02:31:20PM +0000, Paul Cercueil wrote:
Le ven. 4 nov. 2022 à 14:18:13 +0100, Maxime Ripard maxime@cerno.tech a écrit :
The Ingenic CGU clocks implements a mux with a set_parent hook,
but
doesn't provide a determine_rate implementation.
This is a bit odd, since set_parent() is there to, as its name
implies,
change the parent of a clock. However, the most likely candidate
to
trigger that parent change is a call to clk_set_rate(), with determine_rate() figuring out which parent is the best suited for
a
given rate.
The other trigger would be a call to clk_set_parent(), but it's
far less
used, and it doesn't look like there's any obvious user for that
clock.
So, the set_parent hook is effectively unused, possibly because
of an
oversight. However, it could also be an explicit decision by the original author to avoid any reparenting but through an explicit
call to
clk_set_parent().
The driver does implement round_rate() though, which means that
we can
change the rate of the clock, but we will never get to change the parent.
However, It's hard to tell whether it's been done on purpose or
not.
Since we'll start mandating a determine_rate() implementation,
let's
convert the round_rate() implementation to a determine_rate(),
which
will also make the current behavior explicit. And if it was an oversight, the clock behaviour can be adjusted later on.
So it's partly on purpose, partly because I didn't know about .determine_rate.
There's nothing odd about having a lonely .set_parent callback; in my case the clocks are parented from the device tree.
Having the clocks driver trigger a parent change when requesting a rate change sounds very dangerous, IMHO. My MMC controller can be parented to the external 48 MHz oscillator, and if the card requests 50 MHz, it could switch to one of the PLLs. That works as long as the PLLs don't change rate, but if one is configured as driving the CPU clock, it becomes messy. The thing is, the clocks driver has no way to know whether or not it is "safe" to use a designated parent.
For that reason, in practice, I never actually want to have a clock re-parented - it's almost always a bad idea vs. sticking to the parent clock configured in the DTS.
Yeah, and this is totally fine. But we need to be explicit about it. The determine_rate implementation I did in all the patches is an exact equivalent to the round_rate one if there was one. We will never ask to change the parent.
Given what you just said, I would suggest to set the CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT flag as well.
But that would introduce policy into the driver...
I'm not sure why you're bringing policies into that discussion. There's plenty of policy in the driver already, and the current code doesn't do something that the old wasn't doing (implicitly).
And there's plenty of policies in drivers in general. Whether you limit the rate or not, whether you allow reparenting or not, even the CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT flag mentioned above is a policy decision set by drivers.
The fact that I don't want the MMC parented to the PLLs, doesn't mean that it's an invalid configuration per se.
Sure, and that's another policy :)
Maxime