On 06/18/2014 11:23 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 06/17/2014 06:15 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 06/17/2014 06:16 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>> On 06/16/2014 10:02 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 06/16/2014 07:35 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_TEGRA124_EMC
>>>>> +int tegra124_emc_reserve_bandwidth(unsigned int consumer, unsigned
>>>>> long rate);
>>>>> +void tegra124_emc_set_floor(unsigned long freq);
>>>>> +void tegra124_emc_set_ceiling(unsigned long freq);
>>>>> +#else
>>>>> +int tegra124_emc_reserve_bandwidth(unsigned int consumer, unsigned
>>>>> long rate)
>>>>> +{ return -ENODEV; }
>>>>> +void tegra124_emc_set_floor(unsigned long freq)
>>>>> +{ return; }
>>>>> +void tegra124_emc_set_ceiling(unsigned long freq)
>>>>> +{ return; }
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>
>>>> I'll repeat what I said off-list so that we can have the whole
>>>> conversation on the list:
>>>>
>>>> That looks like a custom Tegra-specific API. I think it'd be much
>>>> better
>>>> to integrate this into the common clock framework as a standard clock
>>>> constraints API. There are other use-cases for clock constraints
>>>> besides
>>>> EMC scaling (e.g. some in audio on Tegra, and I'm sure many on other
>>>> SoCs too).
>>>
>>> Yes, I wrote a bit in the cover letter about our requirements and how
>>> they map to the CCF. Could you please comment on that?
>>
>> My comments remain the same. I believe this is something that belongs in
>> the clock driver, or at the least, some API that takes a struct clock as
>> its parameter, so that drivers can use the existing DT clock lookup
>> mechanism.
>
> Ok, let me put this strawman here to see if I have gotten close to what
> you have in mind:
>
> * add per-client accounting (Rabin's patches referenced before)
>
> * add clk_set_floor, to be used by cpufreq, load stats, etc.
>
> * add clk_set_ceiling, to be used by battery drivers, thermal, etc.
Yes. I'd expect those to be maintained per-client, and so the clock core
(or whatever higher level code implements clk_set_floor/ceiling)
performs the logic that "blends" together all the different requests
from different clients.
As an aside, for audio usage, I would expect clk_set_rate to be a
per-client (rather than per HW clock) operation too, and to error out if
one client says it wants to set pll_a to the rate needed for
44.1KHz-based audio and a different client wants the rate for
48KHz-based audio.
> * an EMC driver would collect bandwidth and latency requests from
> consumers and call clk_set_floor on the EMC clock.
>
> * the EMC driver would also register for rate change notifications in
> the EMC clock and would update the latency allowance registers at that
> point.
>
> How does it sound?
At a high level, yes this sounds about right to me.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
