Quoting Stefan Wahren (2022-09-14 11:09:04) > Am 14.09.22 um 20:05 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > > Quoting Stefan Wahren (2022-09-14 10:45:48) > >> Am 14.09.22 um 17:50 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > >>> Furthermore, I wonder if even that part needs to be implemented. Why > >>> not make a direct call to rpi_firmware_property() and get the max rate? > >>> All of that can live in the drm driver. Making it a generic API that > >>> takes a 'struct clk' means that it looks like any clk can be passed, > >>> when that isn't true. It would be better to restrict it to the one use > >>> case so that the scope of the problem doesn't grow. I understand that it > >>> duplicates a few lines of code, but that looks like a fair tradeoff vs. > >>> exposing an API that can be used for other clks in the future. > >> it would be nice to keep all the Rpi specific stuff out of the DRM > >> driver, since there more users of it. > > Instead of 'all' did you mean 'any'? > yes Another idea is to populate an OPP table in the rpi firmware driver for this platform device with the adjusted max frequency. That would be an SoC/firmware agnostic interface that expresses the constraints. I'm almost certain we talked about this before.
