Hi, On 3/16/07, David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 15 March 2007 8:56 pm, Ikhwan Lee wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Although I agree that the current clock framework can handle power or > > voltage domains in many platforms, having something like (struct clk > > powerdomain1, powerdomain2;) does not seem like a good implementation, > > a struct for clocks representing a power domain. > > Good thing that's not what I suggested then, right? :) > > The point was that in the examples I've seen, the power domains > are associated with clock domains, so that each clock is tied > to one power domain. And since you can't use the power domain > without having a clock ... the implementation can tell if it's > got to activate a power domain by looking at the clock. True, although sometimes it gets dirty because multiple clock sources are associated with one power domain at the same time multiple power domains are associated with one clock source. Simple parent and child relationship provided by the clock framework is not always enough. > There may be other models of power domain, but that's the one > I've had reason to look at (which isn't synonymous with a straight > voltage/current supply). > > > > If a new framework is more straighforward and introduces a negligible > > overhead to the current kernel, I think it is worthwhile to have a > > look at it. Plus this new framework might be able to take care of > > those platforms that are not nicely supported by the current clock > > framework. > > Perhaps when we see one, we could discuss that as somethong other > than pure handwaving. But that still won't address the basic point > that it's wrong to assume the clock framework should be written out > of the picture. I think we can reach an agreement. The clock framework does not need to be replaced with a new one since it is serving its purpose well enough. If extra functionalities are needed for clocks, we can extend the existing clock framework. Such extensions will include functions like clk_set_rate_pending() and power_transaction_commit(). However, since clocks and voltages (or power domains) have different characteristics, it is desirable to have a separate framework for power domains and associate that framework with the existing clock framework. I am not sure if this is the direction that the original PowerOp people suggested. If we can agree on this, however, I think we can proceed to look at the code. Ikhwan. > > - Dave > > _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
