lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Montreal Linux Power Management Mini-Summit, July 13, 2009 - Meeting Notes
Linus Walleij wrote:
> I've felt a need for clock notifiers and we've cheated by using
> CPUfreq because it so happens that the clocking in system-wide
> and whenever the CPU freq change so may the other clocks.
>
> But if I put code into a PrimeCell MMC/SPI/I2C driver or whatever and
> use CPUfreq that's very unelegant, and for other platforms where
> the CPU freq don't change when this particular device clk freq
> change plain misleading.
>
> A clk pre/postchange notifier pair would really help and would
> make for elegant drivers that can handle clock freq transitions.
>

A lot of ARM chips have peripherals that are driven by PLLs that run
quasi-independently of the CPU clock.

If I guess correctly at what is being described above, a notifier chain
for the users of a clock would be a clean way for peripherals to deal
with clock speed *and* CPU speed changes, indeed. A clock source that
was affected by cpufreq would place itself on the cpufreq notifier
chain, and also provide a notifier chain for peripherals that are driven
by that clock. When a cpufreq notification arrived, if the clock
couldn't adjust for the cpufreq change it would use its notifier chain
to tell all downstream peripherals about it.

A lot of peripherals could then focus just on the clock notifier chain,
and would no longer care about cpufreq. I like it.


b.g.

--
Bill Gatliff
bgat@billgatliff.com



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-02 04:27    [W:0.432 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site