linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: mediatek: Export CPU mux clocks for CPU frequency control

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:32:06 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Pi-Cheng Chen <pi-cheng.chen@...aro.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	James Liao <jamesjj.liao@...iatek.com>,
	Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Henry Chen <henryc.chen@...iatek.com>,
	Chen Fan <fan.chen@...iatek.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	"Joe.C" <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
	Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@...iatek.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: mediatek: Export CPU mux clocks for CPU frequency control

On 5 March 2015 at 16:21, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> Given the variance of different SoCs I don't think it makes sense
> to try to handle all these cases. Instead the cpufreq-dt driver
> should just call clk_set_rate() on the CPU clock with the desired
> target frequency. Everything else should be handled in the clock
> driver which has intimate knowledge about the SoC anyway.

I agree..

@Russell: I wanted to ask you this since sometime..

On CPU-freq changes we fire PRE/POST notifiers and they are
used for updating loops_per_jiffies which then controls delays.

Now, it is fine to do that for normal frequencies, but what should be
the approach for intermediate frequencies ?

Intermediate freqs: On some platforms changing PLL's straight away
isn't considered safe and so we switch parent to another stable clock,
change PLL rate and switch back.

The *wild* thought I earlier had was to fire these notifiers for even these
intermediate frequencies, otherwise some of the delays will end before
they should have and that *might* cause other problems.

I wanted to know what do you (and other champs) think about this..

Thanks in advance for your advice.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/