[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <006701d2367b$19a6ba00$4cf42e00$@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 14:39:01 +0530
From: "Sricharan" <sricharan@...eaurora.org>
To: "'Stephen Boyd'" <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: <mturquette@...libre.com>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<rnayak@...eaurora.org>, <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] clk: qcom: Set BRANCH_HALT_DELAY flags for venus core0/1 clks
Hi,
>
>A better design would be to check if the associated GDSC is in hw
>control mode and then skip the checks because the clocks are no
>longer under the control of the registers. I presume we only
>enable the clocks here to turn on parent clocks which don't turn
>on/off automatically, i.e. the PLL.
>
I was thinking clocks in the powerdomain still needs to be turned
on explicitly, these are branch clocks, irrespective of the PLLs.
Putting the gdsc in hw_ctrl, only makes the polling on their status
invalid. Anyways would be good to be aligned on this.
>Given that hw control is a static decision I guess that is an
>over-engineered solution though? The problem is that this seems
>brittle because we have to keep two things in sync, the branches
>and the gdsc. So I guess this is ok, but it deserves a comment
>like "GDSC is in HW control" so we know what's going on. Also the
>commit text could be more explicit that clocks within the gdsc
>power domain don't work when the gdsc is off, and with hw control
>of a gdsc we can't tell when the gdsc may be off or on.
>
ok, i will reword the commit log better as above.
So i understand its ok to continue with this way of checking ?
since we are always having a static association which never changes,
than introducing additional fields in the clk_branch which can
get the status of the gdsc.
Regards,
Sricharan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists