MyungJoo Ham wrote: > > Hello, > Hi :-) > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This pach removed unused clock on S5PV310/S5PC210. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > In this patch, you've removed corem0, corem1, cores, periph, atclk, > and pclk_dbg, which are directly affected by cpu-freq drivers. As long > as CPUFREQ uses clocks under 800MHz, corem0, corem1, cores, and > periph's dividers should be updated and as long as CPUFREQ uses clocks > over 800MHz, atclk and pclk_dbg's dividers should also be updated. > Although in the cpu-freq patches of S5PV210, the cpu-freq driver did > not use the clock framework and accessed clock registers directly, I > thought cpu-freq should consider using the clock framework later as, > sometimes, other drivers and modules are interested in the values > related with this domain (e.g., for the stability issues, > suspend-to-mem/disk may want to read and save the clock rates of CPU). > > Do you think CPUFREQ should keep accessing the clock registers > directly? or should start using clock frameworks later? > > ps. If we are going to change the bus speed as well (as in S5PV210's > 100MHz mode), we may need to access aclk_cored, aclk_corep, and > aclk_acp as well. > Basically, no need to control them when changed frequency because can be restored original value. But I think need to check it again. Thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |