On 05/02/2014 15:48, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > Hi Boris, > > On 05/02/2014 10:48, Boris BREZILLON wrote: >> The parent dependency check is only available on the first parent of a given >> clk. >> >> Add support for strict dependency check: all parents of a given clk must be >> initialized. >> >> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <[email protected]> >> --- >> >> Hello Gregory, >> >> This patch adds support for strict check on clk dependencies (check if all >> parents specified by an DT clk node are initialized). >> >> I'm not sure this is what you were expecting (maybe testing the first parent >> is what you really want), so please feel free to tell me if I'm wrong. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Boris >> >> drivers/clk/clk.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c >> index beb0f8b..6849769 100644 >> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c >> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c >> @@ -2543,22 +2543,37 @@ static int parent_ready(struct device_node *np) >> { >> struct of_phandle_args clkspec; >> struct of_clk_provider *provider; >> + int num_parents; >> + bool found; >> + int i; >> >> /* >> * If there is no clock parent, no need to wait for them, then >> * we can consider their absence as being ready >> */ >> - if (of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "clocks", "#clock-cells", 0, >> - &clkspec)) >> + num_parents = of_count_phandle_with_args(np, "clocks", "#clock-cells"); >> + if (num_parents <= 0) >> return 1; >> >> - /* Check if we have such a provider in our array */ >> - list_for_each_entry(provider, &of_clk_providers, link) { >> - if (provider->node == clkspec.np) >> + for (i = 0; i < num_parents; i++) { >> + if (of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "clocks", "#clock-cells", i, >> + &clkspec)) >> return 1; >> + >> + /* Check if we have such a provider in our array */ >> + found = false; >> + list_for_each_entry(provider, &of_clk_providers, link) { >> + if (provider->node == clkspec.np) { >> + found = true; >> + break; > > Hum this means that as soon as you have one parent then you consider it > as ready. It is better of what I have done because I only test the 1st > parent. However I wondered if we should go further by ensuring all the > parents are ready.
My bad, I read the code too fast. Your code already checks that all the parents are ready. So if you agree I will merge your code with mine and send a new patch. > > If I am right, there is more than one parent only for the muxer. In this > case is it really expected that all the parent are ready? > > Thanks, > > Gregory > >> + } >> + } >> + >> + if (!found) >> + return 0; >> } >> >> - return 0; >> + return 1; >> } >> >> /** >> > > -- Gregory Clement, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
