[RFC PATCH 3/6] PM / Voltagedomain: introduce voltage domain driver support

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 08:38:07AM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:

> Intent here is to allow drivers such as cpufreq-cpu0 to be reused on
> platforms such as TI's OMAP derivatives, and other SoCs which differ
> only by the sequence involved in voltage scale operations. So, this
> patch provides a framework for registering the underlying
> implementation of the SoC specific voltage change methodology.

That bit is clear, what's very opaque from the code is how this is going
to be accomplished.

> Overall the sequence takes place after this patch is as follows:
> a) voltage domain drivers such as those of TI or others register with
> voltage domain with devm_voltdm_register.
> b) cpufreq-cpu0/devfreq drivers:
> of_pm_voltdm_notifier_register(introduced as part of patch #1) to
> register notifiers around clk of interest. This request is linked to
> the specific voltage domain using phandle in device tree.
> c) when cpufreq-cpu0/devfreq does a clk_set_rate, the common clock
> framework triggers notifiers in voltage domain core which in turn,
> invokes the corresponding handlers for the voltage domain driver
> ensuring the right dvfs sequence specific to the SoC is triggered.

So the first question I have here is what happens if multiple clocks
need to be updated in lock step - if we're only triggering off clock
notifiers that seems tricky.  The other thing here is that the fact that
your API is "of_" suggests that it is in fact linked very srongly to DT
- it'd be good to split out the layers to make sure things make sense
standalone, the DT helpers are obviously good but the API should be able
to stand separately.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140303/73db7b2b/attachment.sig>