On 03/10/2014 01:01 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:41:05PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >> The only other options are: >> a) Abstract it at a higher level at "user drivers", since they are >> aware of the sequencing needs - but this partially defeats the >> purpose, unless ofcourse, we do a tricky implementation such as: >> clk a, b, c -> prenotifiers in a, postnotifiers in c (which as you >> mentioned is a little trickier to get right). >> b) introduce a higher level generic dvfs function[1] which does not >> seem very attractive either. > >> Any other suggestions other than limiting the usage(and documenting it >> so) and hoping for a future evolution to take this into consideration? > > Something might be doable with telling the clock API about maintianing > ratios between clocks? I do think we should have an idea where we'd go > with such requirements, even if we don't currently handle it, so that we > can hopefully avoid another round of refactoring everything but it > doesn't seem 100% essential, just very nice to have. > Mike, Any suggestions about the above? could we use composite clocks in some manner here(even though I think the original intent of the same was not the same)? -- Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
