[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpr1GBykvwSA5x9HTY5MuvFOdLFjJMkWWdV1qK8W0no0rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 14:32:44 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: qcom: gcc-msm8996: Use read-only RCG ops for RPM
bus clocks
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 13:28, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 31.07.2023 13:01, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > On 13.06.2023 19:54, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 13.06.2023 19:56, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:22:48AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >>>> The config/periph/system NoC clocks are wholly controlled by the
> >>>> RPM firmware and Linux should never ever alter their configuration.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Does Linux need to know about them?
> >> Not really, but it allows us to get rates of their children.
> >>
> >> We can get rid of them if one can argue debugcc is enough. Unless
> >> we need clk_get_rate for some reason.
> >>
> > Any opinions?
> So, do we drop them?
My opinion would be to drop the NoC clocks unless there is any extra
value (like child clocks).
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists