On 01/10, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 01/10/2017 01:23 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 01/05, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> On 01/05/2017 03:13 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> Hi Marek,
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>>>>> +static unsigned long vc5_mux_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> >>>>>>> + unsigned long parent_rate)
> >>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>> + struct vc5_driver_data *vc5 =
> >>>>>>> + container_of(hw, struct vc5_driver_data, clk_mux);
> >>>>>>> + unsigned long idiv;
> >>>>>>> + u8 div;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + /* FIXME: Needs locking ? */
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let's fix it then :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to get feedback on this one, does it ?
> >>>
> >>> That's a question for Mike or Stephen I believe.
> >>
> >> OK
> >
> > What's the question?
>
> Whether or not I need a lock around the code in vc5_mux_recalc_rate(),
> since I am also tweaking the predivider bits there to assure the
> (downstream) PLL supplied from the mux always gets clock in range it can
> handle. This tweaking is mostly inspired by clk-si5351.c driver.
Don't rely on locking in the core for register locking within a
device. That makes a dependency headache if we want to rework the
locking scheme in the core, which we want to do eventually.
Also, please don't cause side effects during recalc_rate(). The
callback is meant to calculate the rate of the clock, not adjust
hardware based on what arguments are passed to it.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
