| Message ID | 1560440205-4604-1-git-send-email-claudiu.beznea@microchip.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | clk: at91: sckc: improve error path | expand |
On 13/06/2019 15:37:06+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote: > From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com> > > Hi, > > This series tries to improve error path for slow clock registrations > by adding functions to free resources and using them on failures. > Does the platform even boot when the slow clock is not available? The TCB clocksource would fail at: tc.slow_clk = of_clk_get_by_name(node->parent, "slow_clk"); if (IS_ERR(tc.slow_clk)) return PTR_ERR(tc.slow_clk); > It is created on top of patch series at [1]. > > Thank you, > Claudiu Beznea > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1558433454-27971-1-git-send-email-claudiu.beznea@microchip.com/ > > Claudiu Beznea (7): > clk: at91: sckc: add support to free slow oscillator > clk: at91: sckc: add support to free slow rc oscillator > clk: at91: sckc: add support to free slow clock osclillator > clk: at91: sckc: improve error path for sam9x5 sck register > clk: at91: sckc: remove unnecessary line > clk: at91: sckc: improve error path for sama5d4 sck registration > clk: at91: sckc: use dedicated functions to unregister clock > > drivers/clk/at91/sckc.c | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.7.4 >
Hi, On 18.06.2019 12:55, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 13/06/2019 15:37:06+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote: >> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com> >> >> Hi, >> >> This series tries to improve error path for slow clock registrations >> by adding functions to free resources and using them on failures. >> > > Does the platform even boot when the slow clock is not available? > > The TCB clocksource would fail at: > > tc.slow_clk = of_clk_get_by_name(node->parent, "slow_clk"); > if (IS_ERR(tc.slow_clk)) > return PTR_ERR(tc.slow_clk); > In case of using TC as clocksource, yes, the platform wouldn't boot if slow clock is not available, because, anyway the TC needs it. PIT may work without it (if slow clock is not used to drive the PIT). For sure there are other IPs (which may be or are driven by slow clock) which may not work if slow clock is driven them. Anyway, please let me know if you feel this series has no meaning. Thank you, Claudiu Beznea > >> It is created on top of patch series at [1]. >> >> Thank you, >> Claudiu Beznea >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1558433454-27971-1-git-send-email-claudiu.beznea@microchip.com/ >> >> Claudiu Beznea (7): >> clk: at91: sckc: add support to free slow oscillator >> clk: at91: sckc: add support to free slow rc oscillator >> clk: at91: sckc: add support to free slow clock osclillator >> clk: at91: sckc: improve error path for sam9x5 sck register >> clk: at91: sckc: remove unnecessary line >> clk: at91: sckc: improve error path for sama5d4 sck registration >> clk: at91: sckc: use dedicated functions to unregister clock >> >> drivers/clk/at91/sckc.c | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- >> 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 2.7.4 >> >
On 20/06/2019 10:30:42+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote: > Hi, > > On 18.06.2019 12:55, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 13/06/2019 15:37:06+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote: > >> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> This series tries to improve error path for slow clock registrations > >> by adding functions to free resources and using them on failures. > >> > > > > Does the platform even boot when the slow clock is not available? > > > > The TCB clocksource would fail at: > > > > tc.slow_clk = of_clk_get_by_name(node->parent, "slow_clk"); > > if (IS_ERR(tc.slow_clk)) > > return PTR_ERR(tc.slow_clk); > > > > In case of using TC as clocksource, yes, the platform wouldn't boot if slow > clock is not available, because, anyway the TC needs it. PIT may work > without it (if slow clock is not used to drive the PIT). > > For sure there are other IPs (which may be or are driven by slow clock) > which may not work if slow clock is driven them. > > Anyway, please let me know if you feel this series has no meaning. > Well, I'm not sure it is worth it but at the same time, it is not adding many lines and you already developed it...
Quoting Alexandre Belloni (2019-06-21 02:33:02) > On 20/06/2019 10:30:42+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 18.06.2019 12:55, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > On 13/06/2019 15:37:06+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote: > > >> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com> > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> This series tries to improve error path for slow clock registrations > > >> by adding functions to free resources and using them on failures. > > >> > > > > > > Does the platform even boot when the slow clock is not available? > > > > > > The TCB clocksource would fail at: > > > > > > tc.slow_clk = of_clk_get_by_name(node->parent, "slow_clk"); > > > if (IS_ERR(tc.slow_clk)) > > > return PTR_ERR(tc.slow_clk); > > > > > > > In case of using TC as clocksource, yes, the platform wouldn't boot if slow > > clock is not available, because, anyway the TC needs it. PIT may work > > without it (if slow clock is not used to drive the PIT). > > > > For sure there are other IPs (which may be or are driven by slow clock) > > which may not work if slow clock is driven them. > > > > Anyway, please let me know if you feel this series has no meaning. > > > > Well, I'm not sure it is worth it but at the same time, it is not adding > many lines and you already developed it... > Is that a Reviewed-by or a Rejected-by tag?
On 26/06/2019 11:53:59-0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Alexandre Belloni (2019-06-21 02:33:02) > > On 20/06/2019 10:30:42+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 18.06.2019 12:55, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > > On 13/06/2019 15:37:06+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote: > > > >> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com> > > > >> > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> This series tries to improve error path for slow clock registrations > > > >> by adding functions to free resources and using them on failures. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Does the platform even boot when the slow clock is not available? > > > > > > > > The TCB clocksource would fail at: > > > > > > > > tc.slow_clk = of_clk_get_by_name(node->parent, "slow_clk"); > > > > if (IS_ERR(tc.slow_clk)) > > > > return PTR_ERR(tc.slow_clk); > > > > > > > > > > In case of using TC as clocksource, yes, the platform wouldn't boot if slow > > > clock is not available, because, anyway the TC needs it. PIT may work > > > without it (if slow clock is not used to drive the PIT). > > > > > > For sure there are other IPs (which may be or are driven by slow clock) > > > which may not work if slow clock is driven them. > > > > > > Anyway, please let me know if you feel this series has no meaning. > > > > > > > Well, I'm not sure it is worth it but at the same time, it is not adding > > many lines and you already developed it... > > > > Is that a Reviewed-by or a Rejected-by tag? > Reviewed-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Quoting Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com (2019-06-13 08:37:06) > From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com> > > Hi, > > This series tries to improve error path for slow clock registrations > by adding functions to free resources and using them on failures. If possible, resend this patch series in plain text. Thanks.
On 27.06.2019 18:03, Stephen Boyd wrote: > External E-Mail > > > Quoting Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com (2019-06-13 08:37:06) >> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com> >> >> Hi, >> >> This series tries to improve error path for slow clock registrations >> by adding functions to free resources and using them on failures. > > If possible, resend this patch series in plain text. Thanks. Done! Thank you! >
From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com> Hi, This series tries to improve error path for slow clock registrations by adding functions to free resources and using them on failures. It is created on top of patch series at [1]. Thank you, Claudiu Beznea [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1558433454-27971-1-git-send-email-claudiu.beznea@microchip.com/ Claudiu Beznea (7): clk: at91: sckc: add support to free slow oscillator clk: at91: sckc: add support to free slow rc oscillator clk: at91: sckc: add support to free slow clock osclillator clk: at91: sckc: improve error path for sam9x5 sck register clk: at91: sckc: remove unnecessary line clk: at91: sckc: improve error path for sama5d4 sck registration clk: at91: sckc: use dedicated functions to unregister clock drivers/clk/at91/sckc.c | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)