Re: [PATCH 3/3] clk: keystone: Add sci-clk driver support

[Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>]

On 01/09/16 01:31, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/31, Tero Kristo wrote:
>> On 24/08/16 11:34, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> On 08/19, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/keystone/sci-clk.c b/drivers/clk/keystone/sci-clk.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 000000000000..6c43e097e6d6
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/keystone/sci-clk.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,539 @@
>>>> +	return (int)new_rate;
>>>
>>> determine rate should return a negative number on failure and 0
>>> on success. The actual rate that was found should go into
>>> req->rate. This looks broken.
>>
>> Yea it seems broken, I wonder how we haven't seen any issues with
>> this in testing.... Apparently positive return values from this are
>> interpreted as success. Having a quick look at clk.c seems to
>> confirm this.
>>
>> Anyway, will fix.
>
> True, perhaps we should fix that so we don't use a long to hold
> the int return value either.
>
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Gets a handle to an existing TI SCI clock, or builds a new clock
>>>> + * entry and registers it with the common clock framework. Called from
>>>> + * the common clock framework, when a corresponding of_clk_get call is
>>>> + * executed, or recursively from itself when parsing parent clocks.
>>>> + * Returns a pointer to the clock struct, or ERR_PTR value in failure.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> Please move this driver to clk_hw_register() and friends. This on
>>> the fly clk generation is scary considering how we hold locks
>>> while the provider is asked to give us the pointer, so allocating
>>> and registering clks (basically reentering the CCF again) could
>>> lead to a locking nightmare. Best to avoid that.
>>
>> Ok, so just converting the driver to use provider->get_hw should be
>> enough? This seems to be a relatively new API in the CCF. Will look
>> at that.
>
> Hopefully it will simplify things greatly.

Well, it didn't simplify things greatly, but somewhat. I still need to 
use of_parse_phandle_with_args with one of the helpers for example. Will 
send out v2 in a bit.

>
>>
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	snprintf(name, 20, "%s:%d:%d", dev_name(provider->dev), sci_clk->dev_id,
>>>> +		 sci_clk->clk_id);
>>>
>>> I hope we don't make dev_name() longer than 20 characters
>>
>> Shall I just increase the size of the buffer and add a length check?
>> Using kmalloc or something here seems overkill, as the name gets
>> copied by CCF anyway.
>
> There's kasprintf() which would always make it long enough. I
> don't know if it really matters though.

Ok, I will use this one.

-Tero