On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 16:01 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Jerome Brunet (2019-01-31 10:40:07) > > On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 13:30 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > With this quirk, CCF is making an assumption that might be wrong. > > > > > > > > The quirk is very easy put in the get_parent() callback of the said > > > > driver, or > > > > even better, don't provide the callback if it should not be called. > > > > > > > > I understand the need for a cautious approach. It seems I'm only one > > > > with > > > > that > > > > issue right now and since I have a work around, there is no rush. But > > > > we > > > > must > > > > have plan to make it right. > > > > > > > > To be clear, I'm not against your new API but I don't think it should > > > > be a > > > > reason to keep a broken behavior the framework. > > > > > > > > > > So do you think you can use this new clk_op and ignore the problems with > > > the .get_parent clk op? Putting effort into fixing the .get_parent > > > design isn't very useful from my perspective. There's more than just the > > > problem that we don't call it when .num_parents is 1. There's the > > > inability to return errors without doing weird things to return an index > > > out of range and there isn't any way for us to really know if the clk is > > > an orphan or not. If we can migrate all drivers to use the new clk op > > > then we can fix these problems too, and deprecate and eventually remove > > > the broken by design .get_parent clk op API. > > > > Stephen, I have nothing against your new API, I'm sure it will solve many > > issues > > > > I'm also quite sure that, like round_rate() and determine_rate(), > > migrating to > > the new API won't happen overnight. We are likely to still see > > get_parent() > > for a while. I don't understand why we would keep something wrong when it > > is > > that easy to fix. > > > > I have spent quite sometime debugging this weird behavior of CCF, I'd > > prefer > > if it can avoided for others. > > > > Yes, fixing the case I reported does not solves all the problem you have > > mentionned. Keeping this bug does not help either, AFAICT. > > > > The fact is that get_parent() already return out of bound values on some > > occasion, and we already have to deal with this when converting the index > > to > > parent clk_hw pointer. Doing it in the same way when num_parent == 1 does > > not > > change anything. > > > > I really don't understand why you insist on keeping this special case for > > num_parent == 1, when we know it is not coherent. > > > > Considering, that I already proposed the fix, what is the effort here ? > > If it is fixing the driver that rely this weird thing, I'd be happy to do > > it. > > > > > > Ok. I'm happy to merge your patch to always call the .get_parent clk op > when num_parents > 0, but please fix all the drivers and analyze all the > implementations of .get_parent to make sure that they aren't broken by > the change in behavior. Furthermore, please add a debug/warning message > into the code when .get_parent returns a number outside of the range of > [0, num_parents) so that they can be converted to use .get_parent_hw > instead.
Fair enough. > Ideally there wouldn't be anything returning a parent index > outside the range of possible parents from .get_parent because this > analysis of drivers would find those implementations and migrate them to > .get_parent_hw instead. > > In parallel, I'd like to convert all drivers to use .get_parent_hw > instead of .get_parent and then remove the .get_parent clk op right > away. Fine by me. Of course step #1 is not required if you get this is in before. As long as things are coherent, I'm happy :) > I'll start a sweep of the users of clk_hw_get_parent_by_index() (I > see 50 calls in the tree right now) and see if I can convert them to > handle errors returned from that API, probably by just continuing and > ignoring errors. I'll start doing the same conversion for .round_rate > and .determine_rate so that we can get rid of that duplicate clk op as > well. Hopefully that's a mostly mechanical conversion. This would be nice ! > > For now I'll move this patch to the end of this series so that it > doesn't hold things up otherwise. It could even be separate series ? with the migration you mentionned above ?