[...] >> >> What about the pm_clk_* API which was built for tracking clocks >> associated with devices for runtime PM. >> >> IOW, you could pm_clk_add(pg->pmc->dev, pg->clks[i]) and then your >> _enable_clocks() would become pm_clk_suspend() an dyour >> _disable_clocks() would become pm_clk_resume(). > > Very interesting, I was not aware of this. > >> I might not be following the mapping between PMC and PGs though so not >> sure pg->pmc->dev is the right struct device, but you get the idea. > > Yes, so this will not work here as-is, because the pmc->dev is common to > all pm-domains (it is the device that creates all the pm-domains). So to > make this work, I would need to create a device for each pm-domain and > add the clocks to that. > > I see that this works very well for normal drivers, but it does not feel > so natural for pm-domains where we don't have a device struct today. By > the way, the rockchip pm-domains implementation is very much in the same > boat as tegra, where there are multiple clocks per pm-domain and it is > handled by a simple list. So I am not sure if you think that we should > be turning all pm-domains registered by pm_genpd_init() into a device > and then we can make use of these pm_clk_XXXX() APIs? > > I have implemented the generic clk APIs that Ulf and I discussed for > handling multiple clocks, but if we think that this is a better way, > then I will hold off for now. I think Kevin has a point that we already have PM clocks to build upon. Could we perhaps try to extend that API instead to suite this needs as well? I do realize that it will make this patchset more complicated. As I stated earlier, this was just an idea I had, so to be clear I won't hold back an ack for this patchset, if you decide to deal with this in separate "improvement" step. Kind regards Uffe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
