On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:57:29PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > Hello, > > On 27 August 2014 17:42, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:45:26AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:54:41AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > >> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:02:48PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:35:51PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > >> [...] > >> > > > > > Mike Turquette repeatedly said that he was against such a DT property: > >> > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/12/693 > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Mike says in that email that he's opposing the addition of a property > >> > > > > for clocks that is the equivalent of regulator-always-on. That's not > >> > > > > what this is about. If at all it'd be a property to mark a clock that > >> > > > > should not be disabled by default because it's essential. > >> > > > > >> > > > It's just semantic. How is "a clock that should not be disabled by > >> > > > default because it's essential" not a clock that stays always on? > >> > > > >> > > Because a clock that should not be disabled by default can be turned off > >> > > when appropriate. A clock that is always on can't be turned off. > >> > > >> > If a clock is essential, then it should never be disabled. Or we don't > >> > share the same meaning of essential. > >> > >> Essential for the particular use-case. > > > > So, how would the clock driver would know about which use case we're > > in? How would it know about which display engine is currently running? > > How would it know about which video output is being set? > > > > Currently, we have two separate display engines, which can each output > > either to 4 different outputs (HDMI, RGB/LVDS, 2 DSI). Each and every > > one of these combinations would require different clocks. What clocks > > will we put in the driver? All of them? > > > > since simplefb cannot be extended how about adding, say, dtfb which > claims the resources from dt and then instantiates a simplefb once the > resources are claimed? That is have a dtfb which has the clocks > assigned and has simplefb as child dt node. I don't see how that changes anything. All you do is add another layer of indirection. The fundamental problem remains the same and isn't solved. Thierry
Attachment:
pgppKa3jAHbEe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
