On 3 July 2014 06:54, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I gave it a spin. It works so you can have my
>
> Tested-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks, all suggested improvements are made and pushed again with
your Tested-by..
> I'm still concerned about the patch where we figure out if the clocks
> are shared. I worry about a configuration where there are different
> clocks for on/off (i.e. gates) that are per-cpu but they all source from
> the same divider or something that is per-cluster. In DT this may be
> described as different clock provider outputs for the gates and in the
> cpu node we would have different clock specifiers but in reality all the
> CPUs in that cluster are affected by the same frequency scaling.
Yeah, this is probably what matches with Rob's doubt. These can
actually be different. Good point.
> In this case we'll need to get help from the clock framework to
> determine that those gates clocks don't have any .set_rate() callback so
> they can't actually change rate independently, and then walk up the tree
> to their parents to see if they have a common ancestor that does change
> rates. That's where it becomes useful to have a clock framework API for
> this, like clk_shares_rate(struct clk *clk, struct clk *peer) or
> something that can hide all this from cpufreq. Here's what I think it
> would look like (totally untested/uncompiled):
>
> static struct clk *find_rate_changer(struct clk *clk)
> {
>
> if (!clk)
> return NULL;
>
> do {
> /* Rate could change by changing parents */
> if (clk->num_parents > 1)
> return clk;
>
> /* Rate could change by calling clk_set_rate() */
> if (clk->ops->set_rate)
> return clk;
>
> /*
> * This is odd, clk_set_rate() doesn't propagate
> * and this clock can't change rate or parents
> * so we must be at the root and the clock we
> * started at can't change rates. Just return the
> * root so that we can see if the other clock shares
> * the same root although CPUfreq should never care.
> */
> if (!(clk->flags & CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT))
> return clk;
> } while ((clk = clk->parent))
>
> return NULL;
> }
>
> bool clk_shares_rate(struct clk *clk, struct clk *peer)
> {
> struct clk *p1, *p2;
>
> p1 = find_rate_changer(clk);
> p2 = find_rate_changer(peer)
>
> return p1 == p2;
> }
I find it much better then doing what I did initially, simply matching clk_get()
outputs. Lets see what Mike has to say..
@Mike: Is this less ugly ? :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
