[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1363253287.3311.32.camel@bilhuang-vm1>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:28:07 -0700
From: Bill Huang <bilhuang@...dia.com>
To: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
CC: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
"mturquette@...aro.org" <mturquette@...aro.org>,
"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] clk: Add notifier support in
clk_prepare_enable/clk_disable_unprepare
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 17:21 +0800, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 03:15:11AM +0100, Bill Huang wrote:
>
> > I don't think deferring will work either, considering the usage of DVFS,
> > device voltage is tightly coupled with frequency, when clock rate is
> > about to increase, we have to boost voltage first and we can lower the
> > voltage after the clock rate has decreased. All the above sequence have
> > to be guaranteed or you might crash, so deferring not only make thing
> > complicated in controlling the order but also hurt performance.
>
> But we could use notifiers in clk_prepare/clk_unprepare to set the voltage no?
> As clk_prepare/clk_unprepare have to be called before clk_enable or after
> clk_disable, the voltage can be raised to a safe level, before the clock
> becomes active.
Thanks Peter, actually I'm just about to propose my v2 RFC which add
notifier in clk_prepare/clk_unprepare.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter.
--
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