On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 31.07.2014 20:41, Thomas Abraham wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 31.07.2014 20:24, Thomas Abraham wrote:
>>>> Hi Tomasz,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 30.07.2014 10:07, Thomas Abraham wrote:
>>>>>> With some of the Exynos SoCs switched over to use the generic CPUfreq drivers,
>>>>>> the unused clock aliases can be removed. In addition to this, the individual
>>>>>> clock blocks which are now encapsulated with the consolidate CPU clock type
>>>>>> can now be marked with read-only flags.
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -1500,6 +1499,7 @@ static void __init exynos4_clk_init(struct device_node *np,
>>>>>> exynos4_soc == EXYNOS4210 ? "Exynos4210" : "Exynos4x12",
>>>>>> _get_rate("sclk_apll"), _get_rate("sclk_mpll"),
>>>>>> _get_rate("sclk_epll"), _get_rate("sclk_vpll"),
>>>>>> + exynos4_soc == EXYNOS4210 ? _get_rate("armclk") :
>>>>>> _get_rate("div_core2"));
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe "div_core2" should work fine here for all SoCs without the
>>>>> need for this if.
>>>>
>>>> The following patch is a pre-requisite for this patch.
>>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg351540.html
>>>>
>>>> The rate can be obtained from div_core2 as well but with the cpu clock
>>>> now registered, the rate can be obtained from the cpu clock instance
>>>> instead of the div_core2 divider. And when Exynos4412 also add cpu
>>>> clock instance, the 'if' above will be removed.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c
>>>>>> index e19e365..1d958f1 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -848,6 +851,6 @@ static void __init exynos5250_clk_init(struct device_node *np)
>>>>>> samsung_clk_of_add_provider(np, ctx);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pr_info("Exynos5250: clock setup completed, armclk=%ld\n",
>>>>>> - _get_rate("div_arm2"));
>>>>>> + _get_rate("armclk"));
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly here, no need for this change.
>>>>
>>>> Same here. Instead of getting the rate from div_core2 divider block,
>>>> the cpu clock instance is used to find the rate. I would prefer to use
>>>> cpu clock here. Is there any reason to prefer div_core2 over the cpu
>>>> clock instance?
>>>
>>> Well, the reason is simple: if you don't need to change something (i.e.
>>> the change doesn't have any advantages), don't change it.
>>
>> The advantage with using cpu clock would be that get_rate can obtain
>> the cached rate whereas when reading div_core2 rate, the clock tree
>> will have to be traversed to determine the rate.
>>
>
> This is just one time printk at initialization, so still no real
> benefits. :)
>
> Well anyway, if you really don't want to undo this change, then I guess
> I can live with it.
Thanks Tomasz. Probably, I would just use cpu clock for now.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
--
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
