clk: implement clk_unregister
PATCH v3 1/1 clk: implement clk_unregister
Currently clk_unregister is unimplemented, it is required in case sub modules want actually remove clk device registered by clk_register. This patch adds the implementation of clk_unregister.
--- drivers/clk/clk.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/clk/clk.c +57 -2
@@ -342,6 +342,25 @@ out:return ret; } +/** +* clk_debug_unregister - remove a clk node from the debugfs clk tree +* @clk: the clk being removed from the debugfs clk tree +* +* Dynamically removes a clk and all it's children clk nodes from the +* debugfs clk tree if clk->dentry points to debugfs created by +* clk_debug_register in __clk_init. +* +* Caller must hold prepare_lock. +* +*/ +static void clk_debug_unregister (struct clk *clk) +{ +if (!clk || !clk->dentry) +return ; + +debugfs_remove_recursive (clk->dentry); +} +/** * clk_debug_reparent - reparent clk node in the debugfs clk tree * @clk: the clk being reparented
@@ -432,6 +451,9 @@ static inline int clk_debug_register(struct clk *clk) { return 0; }static inline void clk_debug_reparent (struct clk *clk,struct clk *new_parent) { } +static inline void clk_debug_unregister (struct clk *clk) +{ +}#endif /* caller must hold prepare_lock */
@@ -1790,9 +1812,42 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_register);* clk_unregister - unregister a currently registered clock * @clk: clock to unregister * -* Currently unimplemented. */ -void clk_unregister (struct clk *clk) {} +void clk_unregister (struct clk *clk) +{ +int i; + +if (!clk) +return ; + +mutex_lock (&prepare_lock); +if (clk->prepare_count) { +pr_debug ("%s: can't unregister clk %s, it is prepared\n" , + __func__, clk->name); + goto out; + } + +if (!hlist_empty (&clk->children)) { +pr_debug ("%s: clk %s has registered children\n" , + __func__, clk->name); + goto out; + } + +clk_debug_unregister (clk); + +hlist_del_init (&clk->child_node); + +kfree (clk->parents); + i = clk->num_parents; +while (--i >=0 ) +kfree (clk->parent_names[i]); +kfree (clk->parent_names); +kfree (clk->name); +kfree (clk); +out: +mutex_unlock (&prepare_lock); +return ; +}EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (clk_unregister);static void devm_clk_release (struct device *dev,void *res)
Signature · 1 line
1.8.1.1
PATCH v3 1/1 clk: implement clk_unregister
Hello,
Quoted 22 lines · Jiada Wang
Currently
clk_unregisteris unimplemented, it is required in case sub modules want actually remove clk device registered byclk_register. This patch adds the implementation ofclk_unregister.Signed-off-by Jiada Wang <[email protected]>--- drivers/clk/clk.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/clk/clk.c +5
-0@@ -342,6 +342,25 @@ out:return ret; } +/** +* clk_debug_unregister - remove a clk node from the debugfs clk tree +* @clk: the clk being removed from the debugfs clk tree +* +* Dynamically removes a clk and all it's children clk nodes from the
drivers/clk/clk.c out: · line 359
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/clk/clk.c +10
-0+* debugfs clk tree if clk->dentry points to debugfs created by +* clk_debug_register in __clk_init. +* +* Caller must hold prepare_lock. +* +*/ +static void clk_debug_unregister (struct clk *clk) +{ +if (!clk || !clk->dentry) +return ;
!clk can never trigger because clk_unregister doesn't call it in this case and debugfs_remove_recursive checks for dentry being NULL itself. So you can drop this check. Maybe you can even call debugfs_remove_recursive even in the case where CONFIG_COMMON_CLK_DEBUG is off?
Quoted 26 lines
drivers/clk/clk.c +9
-2+ +debugfs_remove_recursive (clk->dentry); +} +/** * clk_debug_reparent - reparent clk node in the debugfs clk tree * @clk: the clk being reparented @@ -432,6 +451,9 @@ static inline int clk_debug_register(struct clk *clk) { return 0; }static inline void clk_debug_reparent (struct clk *clk,struct clk *new_parent) { } +static inline void clk_debug_unregister (struct clk *clk) +{ +}#endif /* caller must hold prepare_lock */ @@ -1790,9 +1812,42 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_register);* clk_unregister - unregister a currently registered clock * @clk: clock to unregister * -* Currently unimplemented. */ -void clk_unregister (struct clk *clk) {} +void clk_unregister (struct clk *clk) +{
drivers/clk/clk.c EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_register); · line 1827
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/clk/clk.c +10
-0+int i; + +if (!clk) +return ; + +mutex_lock (&prepare_lock); +if (clk->prepare_count) { +pr_debug ("%s: can't unregister clk %s, it is prepared\n" , + __func__, clk->name); + goto out;
Hmm, there is no way for the caller to detect this error. Probably it cannot do anything about it most of the time, but still it would be nice to signal the problem by letting clk_unregister return an int instead of void.
Best regards
Uwe
Quoted 30 lines
drivers/clk/clk.c +23
-0+ } + +if (!hlist_empty (&clk->children)) { +pr_debug ("%s: clk %s has registered children\n" , + __func__, clk->name); + goto out; + } + +clk_debug_unregister (clk); + +hlist_del_init (&clk->child_node); + +kfree (clk->parents); + i = clk->num_parents; +while (--i >=0 ) +kfree (clk->parent_names[i]); +kfree (clk->parent_names); +kfree (clk->name); +kfree (clk); +out: +mutex_unlock (&prepare_lock); +return ; +}EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (clk_unregister);static void devm_clk_release (struct device *dev,void *res)Signature · 1 line
1.8.1.1
Signature · 2 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 857E9EDCA6C0904DB3357321AA9123EB6246498A@NA-MBX-03.mgc.mentorg.com
PATCH v3 1/1 clk: implement clk_unregister
Hi Uwe
Quoted 28 lines · Jiada (ESD)
-----Original Message-----
From: Uwe Kleine-K?nig [mailto:u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 6:11 PM
To: Wang, Jiada (ESD)
Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] clk: implementclk_unregisterHello,
Quoted 18 lines · Jiada Wang
Currently
clk_unregisteris unimplemented, it is required in case sub modules want actually remove clk device registered byclk_register. This patch adds the implementation ofclk_unregister.Signed-off-by Jiada Wang <[email protected]>--- drivers/clk/clk.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/clk/clk.c index renamed from drivers/clk/clk.c +0
-0934cfd1..0b9e13c 100644
drivers/clk/clk.c +0
-0@@ -342,6 +342,25 @@ out:return ret; }
Quoted 17 lines
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/clk/clk.c +4
-0+/** +* clk_debug_unregister - remove a clk node from the debugfs clk tree +* @clk: the clk being removed from the debugfs clk tree +* drivers/clk/clk.c out: · line 359
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/clk/clk.c +10
-0+* Dynamically removes a clk and all it's children clk nodes from the +* debugfs clk tree if clk->dentry points to debugfs created by +* clk_debug_register in __clk_init. +* +* Caller must hold prepare_lock. +* +*/ +static void clk_debug_unregister (struct clk *clk) { +if (!clk || !clk->dentry) +return ;!clk can never trigger because
clk_unregisterdoesn't call it in this case anddebugfs_remove_recursivechecks for dentry being NULL itself. So you can drop this check. Maybe you can even calldebugfs_remove_recursiveeven in the case whereCONFIG_COMMON_CLK_DEBUGis off?
Yes, check of clk->dentry is not necessary, will remove it, although currently clk_debug_unregister() is only called by clk_unregister(), but for future-proof, better to check !clk before call debugfs_remove_recursive(), what do you think?
Quoted 35 lines
Quoted 23 lines
drivers/clk/clk.c +7
-2+ +debugfs_remove_recursive (clk->dentry); +} +/** * clk_debug_reparent - reparent clk node in the debugfs clk tree * @clk: the clk being reparented @@ -432,6 +451,9 @@ static inline int clk_debug_register(struct clk *clk) { return 0; } static inline void clk_debug_reparent(struct clk *clk,struct clk *new_parent) { } +static inline void clk_debug_unregister (struct clk *clk) { }#endif /* caller must hold prepare_lock */ @@ -1790,9 +1812,42 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_register);* clk_unregister - unregister a currently registered clock * @clk: clock to unregister * -* Currently unimplemented. */ -void clk_unregister (struct clk *clk) {} +void clk_unregister (struct clk *clk) +{drivers/clk/clk.c EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_register); · line 1827
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/clk/clk.c +10
-0+int i; + +if (!clk) +return ; + +mutex_lock (&prepare_lock); +if (clk->prepare_count) { +pr_debug ("%s: can't unregister clk %s, it is prepared\n" , + __func__, clk->name); + goto out;Hmm, there is no way for the caller to detect this error. Probably it cannot do anything about it most of the time, but still it would be nice to signal the problem by letting
clk_unregisterreturn an int instead of void.
Quoted 3 lines
Best regards
Uwe
yes, it makes sense, although all callers of clk_unregister() is not checking return value now, but it wont prevent us to change it to "int".
Thanks,
jiada
Quoted 31 lines
Quoted 30 lines
drivers/clk/clk.c +23
-1+ } + +if (!hlist_empty (&clk->children)) { +pr_debug ("%s: clk %s has registered children\n" , + __func__, clk->name); + goto out; + } + +clk_debug_unregister (clk); + +hlist_del_init (&clk->child_node); + +kfree (clk->parents); + i = clk->num_parents; +while (--i >=0 ) +kfree (clk->parent_names[i]); +kfree (clk->parent_names); +kfree (clk->name); +kfree (clk); +out: +mutex_unlock (&prepare_lock); +return ; +}EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (clk_unregister);static void devm_clk_release (struct device *dev,void *res) --1.8.1.1
PATCH v3 1/1 clk: implement clk_unregister
In reply to Jiada WangQuoted 3 lines · Jiada Wang
Currently
clk_unregisteris unimplemented, it is required in case sub modules want actually remove clk device registered byclk_register. This patch adds the implementation ofclk_unregister.
So what if someone has clk_get()'d this clock but not prepared it? No, this is the wrong approach. If we want to do this then clocks must be reference counted and freed when the refcount gets to zero, just like struct device etc.
We have struct kref as the base structure in the kernel for dealing with these problems, please look at using it.
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 857E9EDCA6C0904DB3357321AA9123EB6246497F@NA-MBX-03.mgc.mentorg.com
PATCH v3 1/1 clk: implement clk_unregister
Hello
Quoted 9 lines · Jiada (ESD)
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux at arm.linux.org.uk]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 6:46 PM
To: Wang, Jiada (ESD)
Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] clk: implementclk_unregisterOn Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 05:37:06PM +0900, Jiada Wang wrote:
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Currently
clk_unregisteris unimplemented, it is required in case sub modules want actually remove clk device registered byclk_register. This patch adds the implementation ofclk_unregister.So what if someone has clk_get()'d this clock but not prepared it?
No, this is the wrong approach. If we want to do this then clocks must be reference counted and freed when the refcount gets to zero, just like struct device etc.We have struct kref as the base structure in the kernel for dealing with these problems, please look at using it.
Russell
Thanks for your comment, I will look at kref.
Thanks,
jiada
PATCH v3 1/1 clk: implement clk_unregister
In reply to Jiada WangHello,
Quoted 64 lines · Jiada Wang
Currently
clk_unregisteris unimplemented, it is required in case sub modules want actually remove clk device registered byclk_register. This patch adds the implementation ofclk_unregister.Signed-off-by Jiada Wang <[email protected]>--- drivers/clk/clk.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/clk/clk.c +30
-2@@ -342,6 +342,25 @@ out:return ret; } +/** +* clk_debug_unregister - remove a clk node from the debugfs clk tree +* @clk: the clk being removed from the debugfs clk tree +* +* Dynamically removes a clk and all it's children clk nodes from the +* debugfs clk tree if clk->dentry points to debugfs created by +* clk_debug_register in __clk_init. +* +* Caller must hold prepare_lock. +* +*/ +static void clk_debug_unregister (struct clk *clk) +{ +if (!clk || !clk->dentry) +return ; + +debugfs_remove_recursive (clk->dentry); +} +/** * clk_debug_reparent - reparent clk node in the debugfs clk tree * @clk: the clk being reparented @@ -432,6 +451,9 @@ static inline int clk_debug_register(struct clk *clk) { return 0; }static inline void clk_debug_reparent (struct clk *clk,struct clk *new_parent) { } +static inline void clk_debug_unregister (struct clk *clk) +{ +}#endif /* caller must hold prepare_lock */ @@ -1790,9 +1812,42 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_register);* clk_unregister - unregister a currently registered clock * @clk: clock to unregister * -* Currently unimplemented. */ -void clk_unregister (struct clk *clk) {} +void clk_unregister (struct clk *clk) +{ +int i; + +if (!clk) +return ; + +mutex_lock (&prepare_lock);
drivers/clk/clk.c EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_register); · line 1833
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/clk/clk.c +10
-0+if (clk->prepare_count) { +pr_debug ("%s: can't unregister clk %s, it is prepared\n" , + __func__, clk->name); + goto out; + } + +if (!hlist_empty (&clk->children)) { +pr_debug ("%s: clk %s has registered children\n" , + __func__, clk->name); + goto out;
How about moving the clock to the orphan list instead, as Mike suggested [1] ?
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/clk/clk.c +6
-0+ } + +clk_debug_unregister (clk); + +hlist_del_init (&clk->child_node); +
drivers/clk/clk.c EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_register); · line 1849
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/clk/clk.c +10
-0+kfree (clk->parents); + i = clk->num_parents; +while (--i >=0 ) +kfree (clk->parent_names[i]); +kfree (clk->parent_names); +kfree (clk->name); +kfree (clk); +out: +mutex_unlock (&prepare_lock); +return ;
Redundant return statement.
drivers/clk/clk.c EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_register); · line 1850
Quoted 1 line
drivers/clk/clk.c +1
-0+}
Shouldn't we also free the clock supplier specific data structure for the clock, i.e. the structure struct clk_hw is embedded in ?
One possible way to solve this could be to provide, e.g. destroy() operation in struct clk_ops ? Alternatively clock providers would need to store a list of their clock specific data structures associated with each struct clk they have registered.
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg250613.html
Thanks,
Sylwester