From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
Cc: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
Robert Foss <robert.foss@linaro.org>,
Dongchun Zhu <dongchun.zhu@mediatek.com>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
linux-media <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] media: dt-bindings: ov8856: Document YAML bindings
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 18:28:58 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200408152857.GO6127@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200408134315.a7cemmto6bi26arg@gilmour.lan>
Hi Maxime,
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 03:43:15PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:21 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 08:20:35PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 06:46:06PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 6:40 PM Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:47:41PM +0200, Robert Foss wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 14:32, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Robert,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 01:29:05PM +0200, Robert Foss wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 10:36, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:35:07AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > But that 19.2MHz is not a limitation of the device itself, it's a
> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation of our implementation, so we can instead implement
> > > > > > > > > > > > something equivalent in Linux using a clk_set_rate to 19.2MHz (to make
> > > > > > > > > > > > sure that our parent clock is configured at the right rate) and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > clk_get_rate and compare that to 19.2MHz (to make sure that it's not
> > > > > > > > > > > > been rounded too far apart from the frequency we expect).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is doing exactly the same thing, except that we don't encode our
> > > > > > > > > > > > implementation limitations in the DT, but in the driver instead.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What I really wanted to say that a driver that doesn't get the clock
> > > > > > > > > > > frequency from DT but still sets that frequency is broken.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This frequency is highly system specific, and in many cases only a certain
> > > > > > > > > > > frequency is usable, for a few reasons: On many SoCs, not all common
> > > > > > > > > > > frequencies can be used (e.g. 9,6 MHz, 19,2 MHz and 24 MHz; while others
> > > > > > > > > > > are being used as well), and then that frequency affects the usable CSI-2
> > > > > > > > > > > bus frequencies directly --- and of those, only safe, known-good ones
> > > > > > > > > > > should be used. IOW, getting the external clock frequency wrong typically
> > > > > > > > > > > has an effect that that none of the known-good CSI-2 bus clock frequencies
> > > > > > > > > > > are available.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So clock-frequency is not about the "Frequency of the xvclk clock in
> > > > > > > > > > Hertz", but the frequency at which that clock must run on this
> > > > > > > > > > particular SoC / board to be functional?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If so, then yeah, we should definitely keep it, but the documentation
> > > > > > > > > > of the binding should be made clearer as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alright so, let me summarise the desired approach then.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There's a separate discussion on the same topic here:
> > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/20200407122106.GD4751@pendragon.ideasonboard.com/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the link.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ACPI:
> > > > > > > > > - Fetch the "clock-frequency" property
> > > > > > > > > - Verify it to be 19.2Mhz
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > DT:
> > > > > > > > > - Fetch the "clock-frequency" property
> > > > > > > > > - Verify it to be 19.2Mhz
> > > > > > > > > - Get xvclk clock
> > > > > > > > > - Get xvclk clock rate
> > > > > > > > > - Verify xvclk clock rate to be 19.2Mhz
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The current status is that you should
> > > > > > > > 's/clock-frequency/link-frequencies/', and in order to replace
> > > > > > > > assigned-clock-rates, you'll want to have a clk_set_rate to 19.2MHz
> > > > > > > > between steps 3 and 4
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would we want to 's/clock-frequency/link-frequencies/' for ACPI too?
> > > > > > > I imagine that would cause some breakage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would, yes, and it would be no more correct on DT either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are basically two possibilities here; either use the clock-frequency
> > > > > > property and set the frequency, or rely on assigned-clock-rates, and get
> > > > > > the frequency instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The latter, while I understand it is generally preferred, comes with having
> > > > > > to figure out the register list set that closest matches the frequency
> > > > > > obtained. The former generally gets around this silently by the clock
> > > > > > driver setting the closest frequency it can support.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wouldn't the former actually cause problems, because the closest
> > > > > frequency the clock driver can support could be pretty far from the
> > > > > one requested? (E.g. 19.2 MHz vs 24 MHz) The driver needs to check the
> > > > > resulting frequency anyway.
> > > >
> > > > That's possible, yes; in this case there wouldn't be a guarantee the
> > > > frequency wouldn't be far off.
> > >
> > > assigned-clock-rates is really fragile... There's zero guarantee on
> > > how far the actual rate is going to be from the asked one, but more
> > > importantly you have zero guarantee on the time frame that rate is
> > > going to be enforced for.
> >
> > Is there such a guarantee if clk_set_rate() is called?
>
> with clk_set_rate itself, no, but...
>
> > > It's simply going to change the rate as a one-off thing, and if
> > > there's the next millisecond someone else is going to change its rate
> > > one way or another, it's going to do so and you won't have any
> > > notification.
>
> You can get notified, and you can use clk_set_rate_exclusive if you
> *really* want to enforce it.
Is the conclusion then we should go back to relying on the clock-frequency
property?
This has been discussed multiple times over the years, and I don't really
disagree with the above. The frequency is typically indeed hand-picked for
the hardware, and no other frequency should be used in any circumstances.
No sensor driver I've seen has used clk_set_rate_exclusive() but I guess
they should. The absence of practical problems has been probably because of
two factors; firstly, these are typically clocks dedicated to the sensors
and secondly, good luck.
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-08 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-31 13:33 [PATCH v3 0/3] media: ov8856: Add devicetree support Robert Foss
2020-03-31 13:33 ` [PATCH v6 1/3] media: dt-bindings: ov8856: Document YAML bindings Robert Foss
2020-03-31 15:12 ` Marco Felsch
2020-04-02 9:57 ` Robert Foss
2020-04-03 19:21 ` Marco Felsch
2020-04-01 8:07 ` Maxime Ripard
2020-04-02 10:10 ` Robert Foss
2020-04-03 23:27 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-04-04 9:34 ` Maxime Ripard
2020-04-06 8:25 ` Robert Foss
2020-04-06 8:35 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-04-07 8:36 ` Maxime Ripard
2020-04-07 11:29 ` Robert Foss
2020-04-07 12:32 ` Maxime Ripard
2020-04-07 15:47 ` Robert Foss
2020-04-07 16:39 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-04-07 16:46 ` Tomasz Figa
2020-04-07 17:20 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-04-08 12:21 ` Maxime Ripard
2020-04-08 12:35 ` Tomasz Figa
2020-04-08 13:43 ` Maxime Ripard
2020-04-08 15:28 ` Sakari Ailus [this message]
2020-04-08 15:30 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-04-08 16:34 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-04-15 10:18 ` Maxime Ripard
2020-04-15 11:10 ` Robert Foss
2020-04-15 16:16 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-04-20 15:02 ` Maxime Ripard
2020-04-09 8:32 ` Robert Foss
2020-04-07 16:20 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-04-04 9:23 ` Maxime Ripard
2020-03-31 13:33 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] media: ov8856: Add devicetree support Robert Foss
2020-03-31 14:01 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-04-06 13:37 ` Robert Foss
2020-04-06 15:06 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-04-06 15:25 ` Robert Foss
2020-04-03 23:33 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-03-31 13:33 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] media: ov8856: Implement sensor module revision identification Robert Foss
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200408152857.GO6127@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk \
--to=sakari.ailus@iki.fi \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dongchun.zhu@mediatek.com \
--cc=festevam@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maxime@cerno.tech \
--cc=robert.foss@linaro.org \
--cc=tfiga@chromium.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).