Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] Common clock: To list active consumers of clocks | From | Stephen Boyd <> | Date | Mon, 22 Aug 2022 16:50:12 -0700 |
| |
Quoting Vishal Badole (2022-08-02 11:09:47) > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c > index f00d4c1..c96079f 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c > @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ struct clk { > unsigned long min_rate; > unsigned long max_rate; > unsigned int exclusive_count; > + unsigned int enable_count; > struct hlist_node clks_node; > }; > > @@ -1008,6 +1009,10 @@ void clk_disable(struct clk *clk) > return; > > clk_core_disable_lock(clk->core); > + > + if (clk->enable_count > 0) > + clk->enable_count--; > + > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_disable); > > @@ -1169,10 +1174,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_restore_context); > */ > int clk_enable(struct clk *clk) > { > + int ret; > + > if (!clk) > return 0; > > - return clk_core_enable_lock(clk->core); > + ret = clk_core_enable_lock(clk->core); > + if (!ret) > + clk->enable_count++; > + > + return ret; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_enable);
We'll want the above three hunks to be a different patch so we can discuss the merits of tracking per user enable counts. Do you have a usecase for this or is it "just for fun"? By adding a count we have more code, and we waste more memory to track this stat. I really would rather not bloat just because, so please elaborate on your use case.
> > @@ -2953,28 +2964,41 @@ static void clk_summary_show_one(struct seq_file *s, struct clk_core *c, > int level) > { > int phase; > + struct clk *clk_user; > + int multi_node = 0; > > - seq_printf(s, "%*s%-*s %7d %8d %8d %11lu %10lu ", > + seq_printf(s, "%*s%-*s %-7d %-8d %-8d %-11lu %-10lu ", > level * 3 + 1, "", > - 30 - level * 3, c->name, > + 35 - level * 3, c->name, > c->enable_count, c->prepare_count, c->protect_count, > clk_core_get_rate_recalc(c), > clk_core_get_accuracy_recalc(c)); > > phase = clk_core_get_phase(c); > if (phase >= 0) > - seq_printf(s, "%5d", phase); > + seq_printf(s, "%-5d", phase); > else > seq_puts(s, "-----"); > > - seq_printf(s, " %6d", clk_core_get_scaled_duty_cycle(c, 100000)); > + seq_printf(s, " %-6d", clk_core_get_scaled_duty_cycle(c, 100000)); > > if (c->ops->is_enabled) > - seq_printf(s, " %9c\n", clk_core_is_enabled(c) ? 'Y' : 'N'); > + seq_printf(s, " %5c ", clk_core_is_enabled(c) ? 'Y' : 'N'); > else if (!c->ops->enable) > - seq_printf(s, " %9c\n", 'Y'); > + seq_printf(s, " %5c ", 'Y'); > else > - seq_printf(s, " %9c\n", '?'); > + seq_printf(s, " %5c ", '?'); > + > + hlist_for_each_entry(clk_user, &c->clks, clks_node) { > + seq_printf(s, "%*s%-*s %-4d\n", > + level * 3 + 2 + 105 * multi_node, "", > + 30, > + clk_user->dev_id ? clk_user->dev_id : "deviceless", > + clk_user->enable_count); > + > + multi_node = 1;
This part that prints the dev_id might be useful and can be the first patch in the series. In that same patch, please print the con_id so we know which clk it is for the device. We should also improve of_clk_get() so that the index is visible to the 'struct clk::con_id' somehow. Maybe we can convert the integer index into a string and assign that to con_id in that case as well.
| |