Hi all, On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri 20 Oct 07:43 PDT 2017, Georgi Djakov wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 09/08/2017 08:18 PM, Georgi Djakov wrote: >> > This patch introduce a new API to get requirements and configure the >> > interconnect buses across the entire chipset to fit with the current demand. >> > >> > The API is using a consumer/provider-based model, where the providers are >> > the interconnect buses and the consumers could be various drivers. >> > The consumers request interconnect resources (path) between endpoints and >> > set the desired constraints on this data flow path. The providers receive >> > requests from consumers and aggregate these requests for all master-slave >> > pairs on that path. Then the providers configure each participating in the >> > topology node according to the requested data flow path, physical links and >> > constraints. The topology could be complicated and multi-tiered and is SoC >> > specific. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > Documentation/interconnect/interconnect.rst | 93 +++++++ >> > drivers/Kconfig | 2 + >> > drivers/Makefile | 1 + >> > drivers/interconnect/Kconfig | 10 + >> > drivers/interconnect/Makefile | 1 + >> > drivers/interconnect/interconnect.c | 382 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > include/linux/interconnect-consumer.h | 73 ++++++ >> > include/linux/interconnect-provider.h | 119 +++++++++ >> > 8 files changed, 681 insertions(+) >> > create mode 100644 Documentation/interconnect/interconnect.rst >> > create mode 100644 drivers/interconnect/Kconfig >> > create mode 100644 drivers/interconnect/Makefile >> > create mode 100644 drivers/interconnect/interconnect.c >> > create mode 100644 include/linux/interconnect-consumer.h >> > create mode 100644 include/linux/interconnect-provider.h >> >> Any comments on this patch? >> > > Sorry, I still haven't found the time to do a proper review of this yet. Same. > >> I am planning to change the prefix that is used for naming for example >> the functions from "interconnect_" to something shorter like icbus_. >> > > This isn't implementing a bus; if you feel that just ic_ is too short I > would suggest naming things inter_. (But keep the full name in the file > names) Not trying to bikeshed too much, but how about icc_ for "interconnect controller"? No idea if that is a hash collision with other in-kernel apis. Just "ic_" looks to me like "integrated circuit". Regards, Mike > > Regards, > Bjorn -- 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
