Hi, Thanks for the review, On Mon 07 Feb 22, 10:14, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 07:53:44PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > In some situations the default rate of the module clock is not the > > required one for operation (for example when reconfiguring the clock > > tree to use a different parent). As a result, always set the correct > > rate for the clock (and take care of cleanup). > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski > > --- > > .../platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c | 54 ++++++++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c b/drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c > > index 8155e9560164..2355088fdc37 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c > > @@ -154,9 +154,6 @@ int sun6i_csi_set_power(struct sun6i_csi_device *csi_dev, bool enable) > > regmap_update_bits(regmap, CSI_EN_REG, CSI_EN_CSI_EN, 0); > > > > clk_disable_unprepare(csi_dev->clk_ram); > > - if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, > > - "allwinner,sun50i-a64-csi")) > > - clk_rate_exclusive_put(csi_dev->clk_mod); > > clk_disable_unprepare(csi_dev->clk_mod); > > reset_control_assert(csi_dev->reset); > > return 0; > > @@ -168,9 +165,6 @@ int sun6i_csi_set_power(struct sun6i_csi_device *csi_dev, bool enable) > > return ret; > > } > > > > - if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "allwinner,sun50i-a64-csi")) > > - clk_set_rate_exclusive(csi_dev->clk_mod, 300000000); > > - > > ret = clk_prepare_enable(csi_dev->clk_ram); > > if (ret) { > > dev_err(csi_dev->dev, "Enable clk_dram_csi clk err %d\n", ret); > > @@ -190,8 +184,6 @@ int sun6i_csi_set_power(struct sun6i_csi_device *csi_dev, bool enable) > > clk_ram_disable: > > clk_disable_unprepare(csi_dev->clk_ram); > > clk_mod_disable: > > - if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "allwinner,sun50i-a64-csi")) > > - clk_rate_exclusive_put(csi_dev->clk_mod); > > clk_disable_unprepare(csi_dev->clk_mod); > > return ret; > > } > > @@ -819,6 +811,7 @@ static int sun6i_csi_resources_setup(struct sun6i_csi_device *csi_dev, > > struct platform_device *platform_dev) > > { > > struct device *dev = csi_dev->dev; > > + unsigned long clk_mod_rate; > > void __iomem *io_base; > > int ret; > > int irq; > > @@ -856,28 +849,53 @@ static int sun6i_csi_resources_setup(struct sun6i_csi_device *csi_dev, > > return PTR_ERR(csi_dev->clk_ram); > > } > > > > + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "allwinner,sun50i-a64-csi")) > > + clk_mod_rate = 300000000; > > + else > > + clk_mod_rate = 297000000; > > + > > + ret = clk_set_rate_exclusive(csi_dev->clk_mod, clk_mod_rate); > > + if (ret) { > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to set mod clock rate\n"); > > + return ret; > > + } > > + > > /* Reset */ > > > > csi_dev->reset = devm_reset_control_get_shared(dev, NULL); > > if (IS_ERR(csi_dev->reset)) { > > dev_err(dev, "failed to acquire reset\n"); > > - return PTR_ERR(csi_dev->reset); > > + ret = PTR_ERR(csi_dev->reset); > > + goto error_clk_rate_exclusive; > > } > > > > /* Interrupt */ > > > > irq = platform_get_irq(platform_dev, 0); > > - if (irq < 0) > > - return -ENXIO; > > + if (irq < 0) { > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get interrupt\n"); > > + ret = -ENXIO; > > + goto error_clk_rate_exclusive; > > + } > > > > ret = devm_request_irq(dev, irq, sun6i_csi_isr, 0, SUN6I_CSI_NAME, > > csi_dev); > > if (ret) { > > dev_err(dev, "failed to request interrupt\n"); > > - return ret; > > + goto error_clk_rate_exclusive; > > } > > > > return 0; > > + > > +error_clk_rate_exclusive: > > + clk_rate_exclusive_put(csi_dev->clk_mod); > > + > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > > +static void sun6i_csi_resources_cleanup(struct sun6i_csi_device *csi_dev) > > +{ > > + clk_rate_exclusive_put(csi_dev->clk_mod); > > } > > If you're going to have that function anyway, let's use > devm_add_action_or_reset, it'll simplify the rest of the patch. Well, this will cause issues later on when adding runtime pm support to sun6i_csi_resources_cleanup: then it will no longer be equivalent to the error case label. Also I feel like making the resources_cleanup call a devm action would not help clarify the general flow of the driver, where the matching setup/cleanup calls are ordered in probe/remove. The driver is quite big with various parts and I'd rather have them behave in a coherent and similar way. What do you think? Paul -- Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com