On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:22:14AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:55:51AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 01/29, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > When converting a driver to managed resources it is desirable to be able > > > to > > > manage all resources in the same fashion. This change allows managing > > > clocks in the same way we manage many other resources. > > > > Can you please add 'managing clock prepared and enabled state in > > the same way'? > > > > The current wording makes it sound like we don't have > > devm_clk_get() when we do. > > > > > > > > This adds the following managed APIs: > > > > > > - devm_clk_prepare()/devm_clk_unprepare(); > > > - devm_clk_prepare_enable()/devm_clk_disable_unprepare(). > > > > Wouldn't this be preceded by a devm_clk_get() call? Wouldn't it > > be even shorter to have the APIs > > > > devm_clk_get_and_prepare()/devm_clk_unprepare_and_put() > > devm_clk_get_and_prepare_enable()/devm_clk_disable_unprepare_and_put() > > > > instead? > > > In many cases I see > > devm_clk_get(clk1); > devm_clk_get(clk2); > clk_prepare_enable(clk1); > clk_prepare_enable(clk2); > > Sometimes the calls are intertwined with setting the clock rates. > > devm_clk_get(clk); > clk_set_rate(clk, rate); > clk_prepare_enable(clk); > > Maybe the additional calls make sense; I can imagine they would. > However, I personally would be a bit wary of changing the initialization > order of multi-clock initializations, and I am not sure how a single call > could address setting the rate ([devm_]clk_get_setrate_prepare_enable() > seems like a bit too much). > > [ On a side note, why is there no clk_get_prepare_enable() and > clk_get_prepare() ? Maybe it would be better to introduce those > together with the matching devm_ functions in a separate patch > if they are useful. ] > > > Is there any other subsystem that has similar functionality? > > Regulators? GPIOs? Resets? I'm just curious if those subsystems > > also need similar changes. > > > Ultimately yes, and most already do. If I recall correctly, I tried to > introduce devm_ functions for regulators some time ago, but that was > rejected with the comment that it would invite misuse. At the time > I accepted that; today my reaction would be to counter that pretty much > everything can be misused, and that the potential for misuse should not > penaltize all the valid use cases.
I think we should ping Mark again. The only thing we are achieving is that everyone is using devm_add_action_or_reset() with wrappers around regulator_put(). As I said elsewhere, there are "always used" devices where it isn't worth it to postpone enabling regulators. Thanks. -- Dmitry
