lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 2/3] clk: introduce the common clock framework
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Saravana Kannan
<skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On Tue, March 20, 2012 7:02 am, Shawn Guo wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:11:19PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
>> ...
>>> +struct clk_ops {
>>> +    int             (*prepare)(struct clk_hw *hw);
>>> +    void            (*unprepare)(struct clk_hw *hw);
>>> +    int             (*enable)(struct clk_hw *hw);
>>> +    void            (*disable)(struct clk_hw *hw);
>>> +    int             (*is_enabled)(struct clk_hw *hw);
>>> +    unsigned long   (*recalc_rate)(struct clk_hw *hw,
>>> +                                    unsigned long parent_rate);
>>
>> I believe I have heard people love the interface with parent_rate
>> passed in.  I love that too.  But I would like to ask the same thing
>> on .round_rate and .set_rate as well for the same reason why we have
>> it for .recalc_rate.
>
> In my case, for most clocks, set rate involves reparenting. So, what does
> passing parent_rate for these even mean? Passing parent_rate seems more
> apt for recalc_rate since it's called when the parent rate changes -- so,
> the actual parent itself is not expected to change.

From my conversations with folks across many platforms, I think that
the way your clock tree expects to change rates is the exception, not
the rule. As such you should just ignore the parent_rate parameter as
it useless to you.

> I could ignore the parameter, but just wondering how many of the others
> see value in this. And if we do add this parameter, it shouldn't be made
> mandatory for the platform driver to use it (due to other assumptions the
> clock framework might make).

From my rough census of folks that actually need .set_rate support, I
think that everyone except MSM could benefit from this. Your concept
of clk_set_rate is everyone else's clk_set_parent.

Ignoring the new parameter should cause you no harm. It does make me
wonder if it would be a good idea to pass in the parent rate for
.set_parent, which is analogous to .set_rate in many ways.

Regards,
Mike

> -Saravana
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-21 00:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site