On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 02:03:16PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 20.07.2023 21:52, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 08:24:01PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >> Very surprisingly, qcm2290 does not seem to require any interface > >> clocks. > > > > What does this mean exactly? The interconnect .sync_state() is > > responsible to drop the initial maximum bandwidth votes, with the > > assumption that all active devices have voted for the bandwidth they > > need. How does this relate to "requiring interface clocks"? > If it required such clocks to be present, sync_state could not > complete, as trying to access some nodes would crash the platform > due to unclocked access. You mean something like the IPA clock that must be active to do the QoS writes? Wouldn't it already crash before .sync_state() then, when the initial max bandwidth votes are being made? > > > > >> It's therefore safe to enable sync_state to park unused devices. > >> Do so. > > > > Doesn't this make everything painfully slow? There are no interconnect > > consumers at all in qcm2290.dtsi. I would expect that all bandwidths > > end up at minimum. > There are no interconnect providers defined in qcm2290.dtsi. Ack, so I guess you're going to add them together with the actual consumers? I think the patch itself is fine. Only the commit message is a bit misleading. The actual change that is being done here is enabling the bandwidth scaling (dropping the max bandwidth votes after .sync_state()). Can you try to clarify the commit message a bit? Thanks, Stephan
