Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Aug 2023 15:25:21 +0100 | From | Cristian Marussi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/6] firmware: arm_scmi: Simplify enable/disable Clock operations |
| |
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 11:01:17AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Cristian Marussi (2023-08-23 02:02:46) > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 01:17:15PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > Quoting Cristian Marussi (2023-08-11 09:14:41) > > > > Add a param to Clock enable/disable operation to ask for atomic operation > > > > and remove _atomic version of such operations. > > > > > > > Hi, > > Yo > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > > :D, given that the 2 flavours of SCMI enable/disable ops (and the upcoming > > state_get) just differ in their operating mode (atomic or not) and the > > Clock framework in turn wrap such calls into 4 related and explicitly > > named clk_ops (scmi_clock_enable/scmi_clock_atomic_enable etc) that hint > > at what is being done, seemed to me reasonable to reduce the churn and > > remove a bit of code wrappers in favour of a param. > > Please add these extra details to the commit text about why we're making > the change. > Sure I'll do.
> > > > > > > > > > No functional change. > > > > > > > > CC: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com> > > > > CC: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> > > > > CC: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c | 8 ++++---- > > > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c | 24 ++++++------------------ > > > > include/linux/scmi_protocol.h | 9 ++++----- > > > > 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c b/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c > > > > index 2c7a830ce308..ff003083e592 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c > > > > @@ -78,28 +78,28 @@ static int scmi_clk_enable(struct clk_hw *hw) > > > > { > > > > struct scmi_clk *clk = to_scmi_clk(hw); > > > > > > > > - return scmi_proto_clk_ops->enable(clk->ph, clk->id); > > > > + return scmi_proto_clk_ops->enable(clk->ph, clk->id, false); > > > > } > > > > > > > > static void scmi_clk_disable(struct clk_hw *hw) > > > > { > > > > struct scmi_clk *clk = to_scmi_clk(hw); > > > > > > > > - scmi_proto_clk_ops->disable(clk->ph, clk->id); > > > > + scmi_proto_clk_ops->disable(clk->ph, clk->id, false); > > > > > > I enjoyed how it was before because I don't know what 'false' means > > > without looking at the ops now. > > > > > > > Yes indeed, I can drop this and rework if you prefer to maintain the old > > API calls, but this would mean that whenever we'll add new atomic > > flavour to some new SCMI clk operations we'll have to add 2 ops instead > > of a parametrized one...this is what would happen also in this series > > with state_get (and what really triggered this refactor) > > > > (and please consider that on the SCMI side, for testing purposes, I would > > prefer to expose always both atomic and non-atomic flavours even if NOT > > both actively used by the Clock framework...like state_get() that can only > > be atomic for Clock frmwk...) > > > > Perhaps we need a local variable to make it more readable. > > static int scmi_clk_enable(struct clk_hw *hw) > { > bool can_sleep = false; > struct scmi_clk *clk = to_scmi_clk(hw); > > return scmi_proto_clk_ops->enable(clk->ph, clk->id, can_sleep); > } > > This let's the reader quickly understand what the parameter means. I'm > OK with adding the function parameter, but a plain 'true' or 'false' > doesn't help with clarity.
Thanks for the suggestion, it would help definitely making it more readable, maybe a local define or enum could make it without even putting anything on the stack.
Thanks, Cristian
| |