Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:02:55 +0000 | From | Ben Dooks <> | Subject | Re: Locking in the clk API |
| |
On 11/01/11 11:15, Richard Zhao wrote: > 2011/1/11 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>:
[snip]
> A well running board will not enable/disable PLLs frequently. It don't > make sense. PLLs are normally disabled on request to enter low power > mode, rather not because all their child clocks are disabled. So we > don't have to consider the time here.
I'd rather see that if all child clocks are disabled the PLL is powered down then. It means PLLs _could_ be left running even when power-down mode is selected because the system still thinks that a peripheral is using them.
If you want to make it so that each low-power mode has to work out what PLLs need to be disabled and then re-enabled makes me want to be sick. Hiding this stuff behind specific implementations is a recipe for disaster. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |