[RFC PATCH v2 0/2] clk: Support for DT assigned clock parents and rates
mturquette at linaro.org
Mon Mar 24 17:57:29 EDT 2014
Quoting Maxime Coquelin (2014-03-21 07:09:26)
> Hi Mike,
> On 03/21/2014 02:45 AM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > Quoting Sylwester Nawrocki (2014-03-20 05:42:33)
> >> Hi Maxime,
> >> On 06/03/14 14:45, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> >>> Hi Sylwester,
> >>> I like the principle of your implementation, but I have two questions:
> >>> 1 - How can we manage PM with this solution, as the parent/rate will be
> >>> set only once at probe time?
> >>> 2 - How to set the parent of a parent clock (which can be shared with
> >>> other devices)? Same question about the parent rates.
> >> Thanks for your feedback and apologies for late reply.
> >> IIUC your first concern is about a situation when clocks need to be
> >> reconfigured upon each resume from system sleep or runtime PM resume ?
> >> As I mentioned in v1 of the RFC I was considering having individual
> >> drivers calling explicitly the clocks set up routine. Presumably this
> >> would allow to resolve the power management related issue.
> >> One example I'm aware the approach as in this RFC wouldn't work is
> >> when a device in a SoC belongs to a power domain, which needs to be
> >> first switched on before we can start setting up and the clocks'
> >> configuration get lost after the power domain switch off.
> > I like Sylwester's approach of handling this one-time setup in the
> > driver core.
> > Any kind of fine grained power management should not be hidden by DT,
> > and by definition that logic belongs in the device driver. It can still
> > be nicely abstracted away by runtime pm.
> > Regards,
> > Mike
> >  Message-ID: <20140320114238.GQ7528 at n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
> How can I access this reference?
I was trying to provide a reference to this thread which is tangentially
related to this topic:
But it hadn't hit any of the mail archives at the time of my writing so
I just copied Russell's Message-ID from his email. If you have a copy of
that email then you can search on Message-ID's for that and you will
find it. :-)
> >> OTOH I suspect devices for which one-time clocks setup is sufficient
> >> will be quite common. And for these there would need to be a single
> >> call to the setup routine in probe() I guess, since it wouldn't be
> >> possible to figure out just from the DT data when the actual call
> >> should be made.
> >> For a global clocks configuration, I thought about specifying that
> >> in the clocks controller node, and then to have the setup routine
> >> called e.g. from of_clk_init(). I think that could work well enough,
> >> together with the patch , adding clock dependencies handling.
> >> But then the clock frequency set up function would need to be
> >> modified to respect the clock parent relationships, similarly as
> >> in patch series . A just noticed  recently, after posting
> >> this RFC (adding Tero at Cc).
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Sylwester
> >>  http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg310507.html
> >>  http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg103069.html
More information about the linux-arm-kernel