Hi Billy,
On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 03:30 +0000, Billy Tsai wrote:
> Hi Philipp,
>
> On 2021/11/30, 5:52 PM, "Philipp Zabel" <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-11-29 at 14:43 +0800, Billy Tsai wrote:
> [...]
> > > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(priv->clk);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Couldn't enable clock\n");
> > > +
> > > + ret = reset_control_deassert(priv->reset);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Couldn't deassert reset control\n");
> > > + goto err_disable_clk;
> > > + }
>
> > Is there any reason to keep the clocks running and the controller out of
> > reset while the PWM outputs are disabled?
>
> Can you tell me about your concerns with this process?
No particular concerns, just curiosity.
> In my opinion, they are used to provide the clock and de-assert the reset of the PWM engine. If we didn't release
> them in probe stage the CPU can't and shouldn't read the register of the PWM engine when call the get_state.
> Assume that we want to adjust them dynamically, the driver needs to add more conditions to check and keep the status
> of each PWM channel, which is not a good deal for the server platform.
Thanks. I don't know the hardware, so I have no idea whether disabling
the clocks would even save a measurable (let alone appreciable) amount
of power.
I've just seen other PWM drivers use runtime PM or enable/disable clocks
dynamically, and wondered why this one doesn't.
regards
Philipp
