[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190605233123.AC6DD2083E@mail.kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 16:31:22 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>, jason@...edaemon.net,
jonathanh@...dia.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
marc.zyngier@....com, mark.rutland@....com, stefan@...er.ch,
tglx@...utronix.de, thierry.reding@...il.com
Cc: pdeschrijver@...dia.com, pgaikwad@...dia.com,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
jckuo@...dia.com, josephl@...dia.com, talho@...dia.com,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mperttunen@...dia.com, spatra@...dia.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 03/12] clk: tegra: save and restore PLLs state for system
Quoting Sowjanya Komatineni (2019-05-31 12:52:44)
>
> On 5/29/19 4:28 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Sowjanya Komatineni (2019-05-28 16:08:47)
> >> + WARN_ON(1);
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + parent_rate = clk_hw_get_rate(parent);
> >> +
> >> + if (clk_frac_div_set_rate(hw, rate, parent_rate) < 0)
> >> + WARN_ON(1);
> >> +}
> >> +#endif
> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.h b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.h
> >> index 09bccbb9640c..e4d124cc5657 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.h
> >> @@ -841,6 +841,15 @@ int tegra_pll_p_div_to_hw(struct tegra_clk_pll *pll, u8 p_div);
> >> int div_frac_get(unsigned long rate, unsigned parent_rate, u8 width,
> >> u8 frac_width, u8 flags);
> >>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > Can you remove this ifdef? It just complicates compilation testing.
> OK, Will fix in next version
> >> +void tegra_clk_pll_resume(struct clk *c, unsigned long rate);
> >> +void tegra_clk_divider_resume(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate);
> >> +void tegra_clk_pll_out_resume(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate);
> >> +void tegra_clk_plle_tegra210_resume(struct clk *c);
> >> +void tegra_clk_sync_state_pll(struct clk *c);
> >> +void tegra_clk_sync_state_pll_out(struct clk *clk);
> > Do these APIs need to operate on struct clk? Why can't they operate on
> > clk_hw or why can't we drive the suspend/resume sequence from the clk
> > provider driver itself?
> >
> Yes can change to use clk_hw.
>
> By clk provider driver, are you referring to clk-tegra210?
I guess so.
>
> clk-terga210 driver has suspend/resume implementation. These API's are
> for corresponding clock specific implementations (clk-pll, clk-pll-out,
> clk-divider) for enabling and restoring to proper rate and are invoked
> during clk-tegra210 driver resume.
Yes, so when the clk provider suspends it needs to do something? Our
handling of clk rates and other state like enable/disable over
suspend/resume isn't really well thought out or implemented so far. TI
has some code to do some stuff, but otherwise I haven't seen drivers
handling this. Ideally it would be something generic in the framework so
that drivers don't have to work around stuff.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists