On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:43 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > Applied to clk-protect-rate, with the exception that I did not apply
> > > > "clk: fix CLK_SET_RATE_GATE with clock rate protection" as it breaks
> > > > qcom clk code.
> > > >
> > > > Stephen, do you plan to fix up the qcom clock code so that the
> > > > SET_RATE_GATE improvement can go in?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I started working on it a while back. Let's see if I can finish
> > > it off this weekend.
> > >
> > Hi Stephen,
> > Have you been able find something to fix the qcom code regarding this issue
> > ?
> This is what I have. I'm unhappy with a few things. First, I made
> a spinlock for each clk, which is overkill. Most likely, just a
> single spinlock is needed per clk-controller device. Second, I
> haven't finished off the branch/gate part, so gating/ungating of
> branches needs to be locked as well to prevent branches from
> turning on while rates change. And finally, the 'branches' list is
> duplicating a bunch of information about the child clks of an
> RCG, so it feels like we need a core framework API to enable and
> disable clks forcibly while remembering what is enabled/disabled
> or at least to walk the clk tree and call some function.
Looks similar to Mike's CCR idea ;)
> The spinlock per clk-controller is duplicating the regmap lock we
> already have, so we may want a regmap API to grab the lock, and
> then another regmap API to do reads/writes without grabbing the
> lock, and then finally release the lock with a regmap unlock API.
There is 'regsequence' for multiple write in a burst, but that's only if you do
write only ... I suppose you are more in read/update/writeback mode, so it
probably does not help much.
Maybe we could extend regmap's regsequence, to do a sequence of
Another possibility could be to provide your own lock/unlock ops when
registering the regmap. With this, you might be able to supply your own spinlock
to regmap. This is already supported by regmap, would it help ?
> This part is mostly an optimization, but it would be nice to have
> so that multiple writes could be done in sequence. This way, the
> RCG code could do the special locking sequence and the branch
> code could do the fire and forget single bit update.