[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fcc43ccb-8c6e-d518-4c70-503501706ffd@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 03:54:03 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
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, rjw@...ysocki.net,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 07/22] clk: Add API to get index of the clock parent
07.11.2019 02:10, Stephen Boyd пишет:
> Quoting Sowjanya Komatineni (2019-08-16 12:41:52)
>> This patch adds an API clk_hw_get_parent_index to get index of the
>> clock parent to use during the clock restore operations on system
>> resume.
>
> Is there a reason we can't save the clk hw index at suspend time by
> reading the hardware to understand the current parent? The parent index
> typically doesn't matter unless we're trying to communicate something
> from the framework to the provider driver. Put another way, I would
> think the provider driver can figure out the index itself without having
> to go through the framework to do so.
Isn't it a bit wasteful to duplicate information about the parent within
a provider if framework already has that info? The whole point of this
new API is to allow providers to avoid that unnecessary duplication.
Please note that clk_hw_get_parent_index is getting used only at the
resume time and not at suspend.
[snip]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists