Message-Id: <201104200010.50656.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:10:50 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Cc:	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH 7/9] PM / Runtime: Add generic clock manipulation rountines for runtime PM

On Tuesday, April 19, 2011, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:42:26PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2011, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > > Do you have any plans to add support for multiple clocks per struct
> > > device? I had some plans to play around with that myself, but if we're
> > > moving the code to a common place then this obviously becomes a bit
> > > more complicated.
> > > 
> > > It's rather common that each hardware block in an SoC is connected to
> > > more than a single clock. This needs to be managed by software
> > > somehow.
> > > 
> > > So if the plan is to make to the code generic, how about allowing the
> > > architecture to associate clocks with each struct device somehow?
> > 
> > Hmm.  For now, my patchset generally reorganizes the existing code without
> > adding new functionality.  Of course, it is possible to add new functionality
> > on top of it, but I'd prefer to focus on the "real" power domains support
> > first (which I think should be done in a generic way too).
> > 
> Multiple clocks is not new functionality, it's the common case for the
> bulk of the platforms, and something that is already presently handled.

OK

> > The plan is to share as much code as it makes sense between platforms and
> > architectures.
> 
> An admirable plan, but the framework needs to be able to provide at least
> the current required level of functionality in order for it to be
> adopted, too.

Sure.

> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 09:57:28PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > @@ -24,23 +24,18 @@
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
> >  static int omap1_pm_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >  {
> > -	struct clk *iclk, *fclk;
> > -	int ret = 0;
> > +	int ret;
> >  
> >  	dev_dbg(dev, "%s\n", __func__);
> >  
> >  	ret = pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> >  
> > -	fclk = clk_get(dev, "fck");
> > -	if (!IS_ERR(fclk)) {
> > -		clk_disable(fclk);
> > -		clk_put(fclk);
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	iclk = clk_get(dev, "ick");
> > -	if (!IS_ERR(iclk)) {
> > -		clk_disable(iclk);
> > -		clk_put(iclk);
> > +	ret = pm_runtime_clock_suspend(dev);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		pm_generic_runtime_resume(dev);
> > +		return ret;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> 
> The before and after changes here are not functionally equivalent. You've
> gone from an explicit multi-clock scheme to a single encapsulated one via
> pm_runtime_clock_suspend().

You're refferring to the OMAP changes I suppose?

> Almost every single SH IP block is likewise abstracted in to a function
> and interface clock, and OMAP and others are where we modelled this
> abstraction on top of in the first place, so there are certainly users
> there too.

In fact, the shmobile runtime PM code in arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm_runtime.c
uses only one clock right now.

Or am I missing anything?

Rafael
--
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