[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D386ABF.9060908@fluff.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:02:55 +0000
From: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
To: Richard Zhao <linuxzsc@...il.com>
CC: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-sh <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API
On 11/01/11 11:15, Richard Zhao wrote:
> 2011/1/11 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>:
[snip]
> A well running board will not enable/disable PLLs frequently. It don't
> make sense. PLLs are normally disabled on request to enter low power
> mode, rather not because all their child clocks are disabled. So we
> don't have to consider the time here.
I'd rather see that if all child clocks are disabled the PLL is
powered down then. It means PLLs _could_ be left running even
when power-down mode is selected because the system still thinks
that a peripheral is using them.
If you want to make it so that each low-power mode has to work
out what PLLs need to be disabled and then re-enabled makes me
want to be sick. Hiding this stuff behind specific implementations
is a recipe for disaster.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists