On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:41:05PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > The only other options are: > a) Abstract it at a higher level at "user drivers", since they are > aware of the sequencing needs - but this partially defeats the > purpose, unless ofcourse, we do a tricky implementation such as: > clk a, b, c -> prenotifiers in a, postnotifiers in c (which as you > mentioned is a little trickier to get right). > b) introduce a higher level generic dvfs function[1] which does not > seem very attractive either. > Any other suggestions other than limiting the usage(and documenting it > so) and hoping for a future evolution to take this into consideration? Something might be doable with telling the clock API about maintianing ratios between clocks? I do think we should have an idea where we'd go with such requirements, even if we don't currently handle it, so that we can hopefully avoid another round of refactoring everything but it doesn't seem 100% essential, just very nice to have.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
