[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190208071726.urevxs5a3vaf7gwh@vireshk-i7>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 12:47:26 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Graham Roff <grahamr@...eaurora.org>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/5] DVFS in the OPP core
On 07-02-19, 14:37, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> I think we also need to consider cross SoC drivers. One SoC may have
> both clocks and OPPs to manage, while another may have only clocks.
We already have that case with CPUs as well and dev_pm_opp_set_rate()
takes care of it.
> Even it this may be fairly uncommon, we should consider it, before we
> decide to fold in additional clock management, like
> clk_prepare|unprepare() for example, behind the dev_pm_opp_set_rate()
> API.
>
> The point is, the driver may need to call clk_prepare|enable()
> anyways, unless we make that conditional depending on a DT compatible
> string, for example. Of course, because the clock prepare/enable is
> reference counted, there may not be a problem in practice to have both
> the OPP and driver to deal with it.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists