On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 09:15:49PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 5.01.2024 17:31, Mark Brown wrote: > > It'd be slightly more robust to have a check here that we do get the > > same RPM back if the variable is already set, just on the off chance > > that something changes in some future system and we do end up with a > > second RPM somehow. > Knowing how improbable this is (currently RPM is responsible for almost all > power and some clock rails, including DDR), I'd say it's excessive, but if > you wish, I can add it. It really feels like something where if this was a good idea we'd have an API to do this directly rather than passing around through driver data. The fact that it's used for all power management doesn't immediately preclude having two instances managing the power for two different bits of the system (eg, a low power island).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
