[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZqO2Nn7Wofs_wfkQ@bogus>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:44:06 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>
Cc: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>, <cristian.marussi@....com>,
<mturquette@...libre.com>, <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org>,
Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] clk: scmi: add is_prepared hook
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 07:22:31PM +0530, Dhruva Gole wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2024 at 21:10:07 +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> >
> > Some clks maybe default enabled by hardware, so add is_prepared hook
> > for non-atomic clk_ops to get the status of the clk. Then when disabling
> > unused clks, those unused clks but default hardware on clks could be
> > in off state to save power.
>
> Just a nit - reword the commit message as:
> Then when disabling the unused clocks, they can be simply turned OFF to
> save power.
>
Ah this was what it meant. I couldn't parse the original text and was about
to ask.
> Also if you can make it still verbose, explain when you expect this
> disabling of unused clks to take place exactly? During boot? Driver probe sequence?
> or By some user commands?
>
Agreed. Being little more verbose here would be beneficial IMO.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists