LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rob Herring <email@example.com> To: Michael Turquette <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <email@example.com>, Sekhar Nori <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Kevin Hilman <email@example.com>, David Lechner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Stephen Boyd <email@example.com>, Arnd Bergmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <email@example.com>, Mark Rutland <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Yoshinori Sato <email@example.com>, Rich Felker <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Andy Shevchenko <email@example.com>, Marc Zyngier <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <email@example.com>, Peter Rosin <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jiri Slaby <email@example.com>, Thomas Gleixner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Daniel Lezcano <email@example.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Magnus Damm <email@example.com>, Johan Hovold <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Frank Rowand <email@example.com>, "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, devicetree <email@example.com>, "open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] introduce support for early platform drivers Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:36:34 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAL_Jsq+7=NGj57k=E5GAuDmW7Uu_YkHJXf8jSyc_ad3r1op4yA@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Michael Turquette <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Quoting Rob Herring (2018-05-14 06:20:57) >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski <email@example.com> wrote: >> > 2018-05-11 22:13 GMT+02:00 Rob Herring <firstname.lastname@example.org>: >> >> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski <email@example.com> wrote: >> >>> This series is a follow-up to the RFC posted a couple days ago. >> >>> >> >>> NOTE: this series applies on top of my recent patches that move the previous >> >>> implementation of early platform devices to arch/sh. >> >>> >> >>> Problem: >> >>> >> >>> Certain class of devices, such as timers, certain clock drivers and irq chip >> >>> drivers need to be probed early in the boot sequence. The currently preferred >> >>> approach is using one of the OF_DECLARE() macros. This however does not create >> >>> a platform device which has many drawbacks - such as not being able to use >> >>> devres routines, dev_ log functions or no way of deferring the init OF function >> >>> if some other resources are missing. >> >> >> >> I skimmed though this and it doesn't look horrible (how's that for >> >> positive feedback? ;) ). But before going into the details, I think >> >> first there needs to be agreement this is the right direction. >> >> >> >> The question does remain though as to whether this class of devices >> >> should be platform drivers. They can't be modules. They can't be >> >> hotplugged. Can they be runtime-pm enabled? So the advantage is ... >> >> >> > >> > The main (but not the only) advantage for drivers that can both be >> > platform drivers and OF_DECLARE drivers is that we get a single entry >> > point and can reuse code without resorting to checking if (!dev). It >> > results in more consistent code base. Another big advantage is >> > consolidation of device tree and machine code for SoC drivers used in >> > different boards of which some are still using board files and others >> > are defined in DT (see: DaVinci). >> > >> >> I assume that the clock maintainers had some reason to move clocks to >> >> be platform drivers. It's just not clear to me what that was. >> >> >> >>> For drivers that use both platform drivers and OF_DECLARE the situation is even >> >>> more complicated as the code needs to take into account that there can possibly >> >>> be no struct device present. For a specific use case that we're having problems >> >>> with, please refer to the recent DaVinci common-clock conversion patches and >> >>> the nasty workaround that this problem implies. >> >> >> >> So devm_kzalloc will work with this solution? Why did we need >> >> devm_kzalloc in the first place? The clocks can never be removed and >> >> cleaning up on error paths is kind of pointless. The system would be >> >> hosed, right? >> >> >> > >> > It depends - not all clocks are necessary for system to boot. >> >> That doesn't matter. You have a single driver for all/most of the >> clocks, so the driver can't be removed. > > -ECANOFWORMS > > A couple of quick rebuttals, but I imagine we're going to disagree on > the platform_driver thing as a matter of taste no matter what... It's really more should the clocksource, clockevents and primary interrupt controller be drivers. Let's get agreement on that first. If yes, then it probably does make sense that their dependencies are drivers too. If not, then making only the dependencies drivers doesn't seem right to me. > 1) There should be multiple clk drivers in a properly modeled system. > Some folks still incorrectly put all clocks in a system into a single > driver because That's How We Used To Do It, and some systems (simpler > ones) really only have a single clock generator IP block. > > Excepting those two reasons above, we really should have separate > drivers for clocks controlled by the PMIC, for the (one or more) clock > generator blocks inside of the AP/SoC, and then even more for the > drivers that map to IP blocks that have their own clock gens. I agree those should be separate entities at least. But for a given h/w block, if you already have to use OF_DECLARE, why would you try to split that into OF_DECLARE and a driver? what advantage does putting non-boot essential clocks in a driver or transitioning to a driver get you? And I've seen PMIC clocks could be inputs to the SoC's clock controller(s), so the dependencies get more complicated. Then does the PMIC driver and its dependencies need to be early drivers too? > Good examples of the latter are display controllers that generate their > own PLL and pixel clock. Or MMC controllers that have a > runtime-programmable clock divider. Examples of these are merged into > mainline. But those are drivers of types other than a clock controller that happen to register some clocks as well. I wasn't saying these cases can't or shouldn't be part of the driver model. Look at irqchips. We have some that use the driver model (e.g. every GPIO driver) and some that don't because there's no need (e.g. GIC). > 2) Stephen and I wanted clock drivers to actually be represented in the > driver model. There were these gigantic clock drivers that exclusively > used CLK_OF_DECLARE and they just sort of floated out there in the > ether... no representation in sysfs, no struct device to map onto a > clock controller struct, etc. > > I'd be happy to hear why you think that platform_driver is a bad fit for > a device driver that generally manages memory-mapped system resources > that are part of the system glue and not really tied to a specific bus. > Sounds like a good fit to me. > > If platform_driver doesn't handle the early boot thing well, that tells > me that we have a problem to solve in platform_driver, not in the clk > subsystem or drivers. Doing things earlier is not the only way to solve the problems. Perhaps we need to figure out how to start things later. Maybe it's not feasible here, I don't know. > 3) Lots of clock controllers should be loadable modules. E.g. i2c clock > expanders, potentially external PMIC-related drivers, external audio > codecs, etc. > > Again, repeating my point #1 above, just because many platforms have a > monolithic clock driver does not mean that this is the Right Way to do > it. And in those cases, I completely agree they should be part of a driver. Rob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-30 22:37 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-05-11 16:20 [PATCH 00/12] introduce support for early platform drivers Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-11 16:20 ` [PATCH 01/12] platform/early: add a new field to struct device Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-14 21:24 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-05-11 16:20 ` [PATCH 02/12] platform/early: don't WARN() on non-empty devres list for early devices Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-14 21:24 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-05-11 16:20 ` [PATCH 03/12] platform/early: export platform_match() locally Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-14 21:25 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-05-11 16:20 ` [PATCH 04/12] platform: provide a separate function for initializing platform devices Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-14 21:25 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-05-11 16:20 ` [PATCH 05/12] platform: export platform_device_release() locally Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-14 21:25 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-05-11 16:20 ` [PATCH 06/12] of: add a new flag for OF device nodes Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-14 21:25 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-05-11 16:20 ` [PATCH 07/12] of/platform: provide a separate routine for setting up device resources Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-14 21:26 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-05-11 16:20 ` [PATCH 08/12] of/platform: provide a separate routine for device initialization Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-14 21:26 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-05-11 16:20 ` [PATCH 09/12] platform/early: add an init section for early driver data Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-14 21:29 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-05-15 8:41 ` Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-11 16:20 ` [PATCH 10/12] platform/early: implement support for early platform drivers Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-14 13:37 ` Rob Herring 2018-05-15 14:06 ` Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-16 1:06 ` Rob Herring 2018-05-11 16:20 ` [PATCH 11/12] misc: implement a dummy early platform driver Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-11 16:20 ` [PATCH 12/12] of/platform: make the OF code aware of early platform drivers Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-14 21:32 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-05-11 20:13 ` [PATCH 00/12] introduce support for " Rob Herring 2018-05-14 11:38 ` Bartosz Golaszewski 2018-05-14 13:20 ` Rob Herring 2018-05-30 19:40 ` Michael Turquette 2018-05-30 22:36 ` Rob Herring [this message] 2018-05-31 6:42 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-05-31 14:16 ` Tony Lindgren 2018-10-19 12:08 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CAL_Jsq+7=NGj57k=E5GAuDmW7Uu_YkHJXf8jSyc_ad3r1op4yA@mail.gmail.com' \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).