On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 08:07:56AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 18-07-22, 07:27, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > The OPP tables, which are part of the CPU nodes, mentions clock rates. > > Are these values for the cxo/gpll clocks or the clock that reaches the > > CPUs? I believe the latter. The DT is not really complete if the CPU > > node mentions the frequency, but not the source clock. It works for > > you because you don't want to do clk_set_rate() in this case, but then > > it leaves other frameworks, like OPP, confused and rightly so. > > > > Normally, there is always a difference in what the OPP table contains > > as frequency value and what the hardware programs, mostly it is small > > though. It shouldn't prevent us from having the hierarchy clearly > > defined in the DT. > > > > Based on your description, I think it would be better to make > > cpufreq-hw a clock provider and CPUs the consumer of it. It would then > > allow the OPP core to not carry the hack to make it all work. > > Bjorn / Mani, > > Can we please get this sorted out ? I don't want to carry an unnecessary hack in > the OPP core for this. > I'm waiting for inputs from Bjorn. @Bjorn: What do you think of the proposal to add qcom-cpufreq-hw as the clk provider for CPUs? Thanks, Mani > -- > viresh -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
