Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] rust: clk: use the type-state pattern

On Mon Aug 3, 2026 at 3:30 AM JST, Gary Guo wrote:
> On Mon Jul 6, 2026 at 3:37 PM BST, Daniel Almeida wrote:
<...>
>> It solves d) by directly encoding the state of the Clk into the type, e.g.:
>> Clk<Enabled> is now known to be a Clk that is enabled.
>
> The design conflate states with actions. Our existing type state for devices
> don't do this: `Device<Bound>` means that the device is currently bound, not
> that dropping it will unbind it. Yet, a `Clk<Prepared>` doesn't mean just that
> "clock is prepared" but rather "clock is prepared and needs to be unprepared on
> drop".
>
> One way around this is to mimic the "Registration" pattern: have a type to
> indicate that a `Clk` has been prepared and its `drop` will undo it, and then
> this type can `Deref` to `Clk<Prepared>` which just mean a prepared clock.

Just as the driver core hands over `&Device<Bound>` to a driver as a
guarantee that the device is currently bound, so can the driver pass a
`&Clk<Prepared>` to a function to assert a similar proof. Here the
reference only means "clock is prepared", without any action implied.

The typestate has real practical benefits, as unlike `Device` which has
a well-defined life cycle entirely controlled by the driver core, clock
handles are owned by drivers and their use can go all over the place.

Driver A might want to enable a clock in short bursts in order to
preserve power, and keep it prepared otherwise. For this, a
`Clk<Prepared>` with the `EnabledGuard` I mentioned in patch 2 would be
a good fit. Driver B might need to keep a given clock enabled all the
time and only change its rate, and thus will store a `Clk<Enabled>`.
Driver C may have different PM states, and can encode these in an enum
where relevant clocks are either `Prepared` or `Enabled` depending on
the variant.

Mandating a registration-like pattern here looks a bit overkill to me
and I am not sure what this would grant us. It would definitely
introduce some complexity: say that you want to keep a prepared clock in
your driver data, does it mean you need to store the `Clk` itself, and
then its prepared guard, which references the `Clk` in the same
structure?

I guess it's fine if we enable this pattern via the storage of a
`Clk<Unprepared>` and the relevant use of guards, as it may be the
correct fit for a few drivers; but that's not how most drivers use
clocks, so we should also allow them to store their resource in a more
advanced state.

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv