On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 23:58 +0100, Jerome Brunet wrote: > On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 15:14 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > We actively discourage using init callbacks. Can you do this some other > > > > way? > > > > > > Yes I'm aware of that but init it the right place to do this. > > > To be clear, this is not initializing the clock to some particular rate, > > > the > > > rate is preserved. > > > > > > It just applies the necessary settings that needs to be done only once to > > > make > > > sure the clock is in working order and that the rate calculated is > > > actually > > > accurate. > > > > Ok, but can you do that in your driver's probe routine instead of > > attaching to the init callback? We want to get rid of "init" at some > > point so throwing the init sequence stuff into the driver probe around > > registration is a solution. Or we should think about not discouraging > > the init callback > > Is is callback really a problem after all ? > I think we should actively prevent using it to set a particular rate. > > Here, the goal is put the clock in working order. The bootloader does not > always do that for us. I could put this in controller driver, but I would have > to repeat the init pattern for each instance of the clock...not nice > Using the callback clearly shows the relationship between the init and the > clock. I think it is a lot better. > > In the same series, I have added some init for the controller. In this case > the init target a group of clocks, so having the init in the controller makes > sense for that > >
Hi Stephen, Is it ok if we go ahead with this ? BTW, it is not the only Amlogic clock using the .init callback (the pll and sclk use it as well). It is not an excuse and I agree, there is always another way to do things. Still having an init() callback is really convenient for several cases. Reworking those 3 drivers to do without it would not help maintainability.
