[PATCH 1/2] clk: clk-sccg-pll: Remove leftover debug output

[PATCH 1/2] clk: clk-sccg-pll: Remove leftover debug output

[Andrey Smirnov]

Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c
index 951234367..bbfd95a11 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c
@@ -121,11 +121,9 @@ static void clk_pll1_unprepare(struct clk *clk)
 {
 	struct clk_sccg_pll *pll = to_clk_sccg_pll(clk);
 	u32 val;
-printf("%s %p\n", __func__, pll);
 	val = readl(pll->base);
 	val |= (1 << PLL_PD);
 	writel(val, pll->base);
-printf("fuschi\n");
 }
 
 static unsigned long clk_pll2_recalc_rate(struct clk *clk,
-- 
2.17.1


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

[PATCH 2/2] clk: clk-sccg-pll: Drop prepare/unprepare for SCCG_PLL2

[Andrey Smirnov]

A number of PLL pairs (e.g. "sys1_pll1" and "sys1_pll2") share the
same configuration register, so touching PD bit, as is done for
SCCG_PLL2 in its prepare/unprepare methods will result in shut down of
both PLLs. This is very undesireable, since attempting to re-parent a
clock to "sys1_pll2" might result in complete system shutdown due to
"sys1_pll1" being shut-down as a part of re-parenting process.

There might be a better solution, but for now, just drop both methods
for SCCG_PLL2, since this seem to work OK in practice.

Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c | 25 -------------------------
 1 file changed, 25 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c
index bbfd95a11..cd1079b0c 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c
@@ -103,29 +103,6 @@ static int clk_pll1_set_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int clk_pll1_prepare(struct clk *clk)
-{
-	struct clk_sccg_pll *pll = to_clk_sccg_pll(clk);
-	u32 val;
-
-	val = readl(pll->base);
-	val &= ~(1 << PLL_PD);
-	writel(val, pll->base);
-
-	/* FIXME: PLL lock check */
-
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static void clk_pll1_unprepare(struct clk *clk)
-{
-	struct clk_sccg_pll *pll = to_clk_sccg_pll(clk);
-	u32 val;
-	val = readl(pll->base);
-	val |= (1 << PLL_PD);
-	writel(val, pll->base);
-}
-
 static unsigned long clk_pll2_recalc_rate(struct clk *clk,
 					 unsigned long parent_rate)
 {
@@ -198,8 +175,6 @@ static const struct clk_ops clk_sccg_pll1_ops = {
 };
 
 static const struct clk_ops clk_sccg_pll2_ops = {
-	.enable		= clk_pll1_prepare,
-	.disable	= clk_pll1_unprepare,
 	.recalc_rate	= clk_pll2_recalc_rate,
 	.round_rate	= clk_pll2_round_rate,
 	.set_rate	= clk_pll2_set_rate,
-- 
2.17.1


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: clk-sccg-pll: Drop prepare/unprepare for SCCG_PLL2

[Sascha Hauer]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:28:53PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> A number of PLL pairs (e.g. "sys1_pll1" and "sys1_pll2") share the
> same configuration register, so touching PD bit, as is done for
> SCCG_PLL2 in its prepare/unprepare methods will result in shut down of
> both PLLs. This is very undesireable, since attempting to re-parent a
> clock to "sys1_pll2" might result in complete system shutdown due to
> "sys1_pll1" being shut-down as a part of re-parenting process.

I can imagine that there are problems with the way it is currently
handled, but the scenario you describe shouldn't happen. "sys1_pll1"
will never be shut down because it doesn't have a disable hook:

static const struct clk_ops clk_sccg_pll1_ops = {
        .is_enabled     = clk_pll1_is_prepared,
        .recalc_rate    = clk_pll1_recalc_rate,
        .round_rate     = clk_pll1_round_rate,
        .set_rate       = clk_pll1_set_rate,
};

static const struct clk_ops clk_sccg_pll2_ops = {
        .enable         = clk_pll1_prepare,
        .disable        = clk_pll1_unprepare,
        .recalc_rate    = clk_pll2_recalc_rate,
        .round_rate     = clk_pll2_round_rate,
        .set_rate       = clk_pll2_set_rate,
};

Have I missed something?

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [PATCH 1/2] clk: clk-sccg-pll: Remove leftover debug output

[Sascha Hauer]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:28:52PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c
> index 951234367..bbfd95a11 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-sccg-pll.c
> @@ -121,11 +121,9 @@ static void clk_pll1_unprepare(struct clk *clk)
>  {
>  	struct clk_sccg_pll *pll = to_clk_sccg_pll(clk);
>  	u32 val;
> -printf("%s %p\n", __func__, pll);
>  	val = readl(pll->base);
>  	val |= (1 << PLL_PD);
>  	writel(val, pll->base);
> -printf("fuschi\n");
>  }

Applied this one, thanks

I'm glad I haven't used more explicit words as debug markers ;)

Sascha


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: clk-sccg-pll: Drop prepare/unprepare for SCCG_PLL2

[Andrey Smirnov]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:31 AM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:28:53PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > A number of PLL pairs (e.g. "sys1_pll1" and "sys1_pll2") share the
> > same configuration register, so touching PD bit, as is done for
> > SCCG_PLL2 in its prepare/unprepare methods will result in shut down of
> > both PLLs. This is very undesireable, since attempting to re-parent a
> > clock to "sys1_pll2" might result in complete system shutdown due to
> > "sys1_pll1" being shut-down as a part of re-parenting process.
>
> I can imagine that there are problems with the way it is currently
> handled, but the scenario you describe shouldn't happen. "sys1_pll1"
> will never be shut down because it doesn't have a disable hook:
>
> static const struct clk_ops clk_sccg_pll1_ops = {
>         .is_enabled     = clk_pll1_is_prepared,
>         .recalc_rate    = clk_pll1_recalc_rate,
>         .round_rate     = clk_pll1_round_rate,
>         .set_rate       = clk_pll1_set_rate,
> };
>
> static const struct clk_ops clk_sccg_pll2_ops = {
>         .enable         = clk_pll1_prepare,
>         .disable        = clk_pll1_unprepare,
>         .recalc_rate    = clk_pll2_recalc_rate,
>         .round_rate     = clk_pll2_round_rate,
>         .set_rate       = clk_pll2_set_rate,
> };
>
> Have I missed something?
>

Yes, but that's probably due to my explanation being too vague, so let
me try again. Both clocks "sys1_pll1" and "sys1_pll2" are
controlled/configured via separate bit fields in the _same_ register.
That register also has a single "powerdown"/"PD" bit that is shared
between both PLLs and affects them both. The way code is currently
implemented calling clk_disable() on "sys1_pll2" will clear PD bit and
as a result "sys1_pll1" will be shut down as well. This is not that
far-fetched of a scenario because a number of derived clocks that go
out to individual peripherals are specified with
CLK_OPS_PARENT_ENABLE, so trivial clock re-parenting like this one:
https://github.com/ndreys/barebox/commit/802d1d5be1f1f3df996ba26b115dd3a55bc10c67
will result in hung system.

Hopefully this does a better job of explaining what I was trying to fix.

Thanks,
Andrey Smirnov

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: clk-sccg-pll: Drop prepare/unprepare for SCCG_PLL2

[Sascha Hauer]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 06:07:01PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:31 AM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:28:53PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > > A number of PLL pairs (e.g. "sys1_pll1" and "sys1_pll2") share the
> > > same configuration register, so touching PD bit, as is done for
> > > SCCG_PLL2 in its prepare/unprepare methods will result in shut down of
> > > both PLLs. This is very undesireable, since attempting to re-parent a
> > > clock to "sys1_pll2" might result in complete system shutdown due to
> > > "sys1_pll1" being shut-down as a part of re-parenting process.
> >
> > I can imagine that there are problems with the way it is currently
> > handled, but the scenario you describe shouldn't happen. "sys1_pll1"
> > will never be shut down because it doesn't have a disable hook:
> >
> > static const struct clk_ops clk_sccg_pll1_ops = {
> >         .is_enabled     = clk_pll1_is_prepared,
> >         .recalc_rate    = clk_pll1_recalc_rate,
> >         .round_rate     = clk_pll1_round_rate,
> >         .set_rate       = clk_pll1_set_rate,
> > };
> >
> > static const struct clk_ops clk_sccg_pll2_ops = {
> >         .enable         = clk_pll1_prepare,
> >         .disable        = clk_pll1_unprepare,
> >         .recalc_rate    = clk_pll2_recalc_rate,
> >         .round_rate     = clk_pll2_round_rate,
> >         .set_rate       = clk_pll2_set_rate,
> > };
> >
> > Have I missed something?
> >
> 
> Yes, but that's probably due to my explanation being too vague, so let
> me try again. Both clocks "sys1_pll1" and "sys1_pll2" are
> controlled/configured via separate bit fields in the _same_ register.
> That register also has a single "powerdown"/"PD" bit that is shared
> between both PLLs and affects them both. The way code is currently
> implemented calling clk_disable() on "sys1_pll2" will clear PD bit and
> as a result "sys1_pll1" will be shut down as well. This is not that
> far-fetched of a scenario because a number of derived clocks that go
> out to individual peripherals are specified with
> CLK_OPS_PARENT_ENABLE, so trivial clock re-parenting like this one:
> https://github.com/ndreys/barebox/commit/802d1d5be1f1f3df996ba26b115dd3a55bc10c67
> will result in hung system.
> 
> Hopefully this does a better job of explaining what I was trying to fix.

Yeah, I thought you mixed up both PLLs, but reading your initial
eplanation again you were right from the start.

I agree that we should just remove the enable/disable hooks and see what
we have to do when somebody actually tries to do something with the
clocks (other than get the rate from)

Sascha


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: clk-sccg-pll: Drop prepare/unprepare for SCCG_PLL2

[Andrey Smirnov]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:54 PM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 06:07:01PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:31 AM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:28:53PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > > > A number of PLL pairs (e.g. "sys1_pll1" and "sys1_pll2") share the
> > > > same configuration register, so touching PD bit, as is done for
> > > > SCCG_PLL2 in its prepare/unprepare methods will result in shut down of
> > > > both PLLs. This is very undesireable, since attempting to re-parent a
> > > > clock to "sys1_pll2" might result in complete system shutdown due to
> > > > "sys1_pll1" being shut-down as a part of re-parenting process.
> > >
> > > I can imagine that there are problems with the way it is currently
> > > handled, but the scenario you describe shouldn't happen. "sys1_pll1"
> > > will never be shut down because it doesn't have a disable hook:
> > >
> > > static const struct clk_ops clk_sccg_pll1_ops = {
> > >         .is_enabled     = clk_pll1_is_prepared,
> > >         .recalc_rate    = clk_pll1_recalc_rate,
> > >         .round_rate     = clk_pll1_round_rate,
> > >         .set_rate       = clk_pll1_set_rate,
> > > };
> > >
> > > static const struct clk_ops clk_sccg_pll2_ops = {
> > >         .enable         = clk_pll1_prepare,
> > >         .disable        = clk_pll1_unprepare,
> > >         .recalc_rate    = clk_pll2_recalc_rate,
> > >         .round_rate     = clk_pll2_round_rate,
> > >         .set_rate       = clk_pll2_set_rate,
> > > };
> > >
> > > Have I missed something?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but that's probably due to my explanation being too vague, so let
> > me try again. Both clocks "sys1_pll1" and "sys1_pll2" are
> > controlled/configured via separate bit fields in the _same_ register.
> > That register also has a single "powerdown"/"PD" bit that is shared
> > between both PLLs and affects them both. The way code is currently
> > implemented calling clk_disable() on "sys1_pll2" will clear PD bit and
> > as a result "sys1_pll1" will be shut down as well. This is not that
> > far-fetched of a scenario because a number of derived clocks that go
> > out to individual peripherals are specified with
> > CLK_OPS_PARENT_ENABLE, so trivial clock re-parenting like this one:
> > https://github.com/ndreys/barebox/commit/802d1d5be1f1f3df996ba26b115dd3a55bc10c67
> > will result in hung system.
> >
> > Hopefully this does a better job of explaining what I was trying to fix.
>
> Yeah, I thought you mixed up both PLLs, but reading your initial
> eplanation again you were right from the start.
>
> I agree that we should just remove the enable/disable hooks and see what
> we have to do when somebody actually tries to do something with the
> clocks (other than get the rate from)
>

Hmm, revisiting this in light of a related kernel thread [1], I think
this problem can be avoided if reference counters of critical clocks
are properly initialized. Unless you already applied this patch, I
think we should just wait for the kernel code to land, I'll backport
it and we can work on resolving any issues if they arise then.

Thanks,
Andrey Smirnov

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1534945703-4730-4-git-send-email-abel.vesa@nxp.com/T/#u

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox