[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <161567452539.1478170.2985873696192051312@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 14:28:45 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: od@...c.me, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] clk: Add clk_get_first_to_set_rate
Quoting Paul Cercueil (2021-03-07 09:07:41)
> The purpose of this function is to be used along with the notifier
> mechanism.
>
> When a parent clock can see its rate externally changed at any moment,
> and a driver needs a specific clock rate to function, it can register a
> notifier on the parent clock, and call clk_set_rate() on the base clock
> to adjust its frequency according to the new parent clock.
Can the driver use the rate locking mechanism to get a certain rate
instead of registering for notifiers and trying to react to changes?
>
> This works fine, until the base clock has the CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag
> set. In that case, calling clk_set_rate() on the base clock will call
> clk_set_rate() on the parent clock, which will trigger the notifier
> again, and we're in a loop.
>
> For that reason, we need to register the notifier on the parent clock of
> the first ancestor of the base clock that will effectively modify its
> rate when clk_set_rate() is called, which we can now obtain with
> clk_get_first_to_set_rate().
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists