[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221124052443.GA5119@thinkpad>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 10:54:43 +0530
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, andersson@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] OPP: Disallow "opp-hz" property without a
corresponding clk
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 09:53:04AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22-11-22, 18:56, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > If there is no .set_rate() callback implemented by the clock provider, it won't
> > hurt, right?
>
> It shouldn't, I guess. Well, in that case, is the first patch even
> required ? Maybe we should keep it, this makes clear that we won't
> even call set_rate(), irrespective of the face that it is implemented
> or not.
>
I don't think that detail is required to be made explicit. If someone cares,
they can easlily find out by glancing through the OPP code.
So IMO, we don't need patch 1/2.
> Also, the clk provider may not be part of this file later on, for
> other SoC versions, and it is better in that case too.
>
We cannot predict what the HW guys will come up with ;) But as said above, I
don't think it is necessary to to make it explicit.
Thanks,
Mani
> --
> viresh
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
Powered by blists - more mailing lists