Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:31:45 -0700 | From | Stephen Boyd <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] clk: Make clk API return per-user struct clk instances |
| |
On 10/06/2014 10:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> This is the end goal. I understand that the provider API is sort >> of a mess with us allowing drivers to use the underscore and >> non-underscore functions and the mixture of struct clk and struct >> ckl_hw throughout. >> >> struct clk_hw <--> struct clk_core <----> struct clk >> \-> struct clk >> |-> struct clk > Agree this is how it should look like at some point, but for now I > need a reference to struct clk from struct clk_hw, so providers can > keep using the existing API. This reference would be removed once they > move to the new clk_hw-based API.
Ok sounds like we're on the same page.
>>> +struct clk *__clk_create_clk(struct clk_core *clk_core, const char *dev_id, >>> + const char *con_id); >>> +#endif >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clkdev.c b/drivers/clk/clkdev.c >>> index da4bda8..fe3712f 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/clk/clkdev.c >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clkdev.c >>> @@ -168,14 +172,27 @@ static struct clk_lookup *clk_find(const char *dev_id, const char *con_id) >>> struct clk *clk_get_sys(const char *dev_id, const char *con_id) >>> { >>> struct clk_lookup *cl; >>> + struct clk *clk = NULL; >>> >>> mutex_lock(&clocks_mutex); >>> cl = clk_find(dev_id, con_id); >>> - if (cl && !__clk_get(cl->clk)) >>> - cl = NULL; >>> + if (cl) { >>> +#if defined(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK) >>> + clk = __clk_create_clk(cl->clk->core, dev_id, con_id); >>> + if (clk && !__clk_get(clk)) { >>> + kfree(clk); >> This looks weird. It makes me suspect we've failed to reference >> count something properly. Can we avoid this? > Can you extend on this? But I see how the behaviour doesn't match the > previous one because cl should be NULLed when __clk_get fails. I have > fixed this.
It triggers my "that's not symmetric filter" because it requires the caller to free something allocated by the callee. Do we still need __clk_get() to be called in the common clock path? Why not just do the stuff we do in __clk_get() in __clk_create_clk()? Then if that fails we can return an error pointer indicating some sort of failure (-ENOENT?) and we don't need to do any sort of cleanup otherwise.
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |