On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 01:55 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:54:09PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>> you need some other way to handle this. Why do you need to manually set
>>>>> the rate rather than having hwmod handle this for you ?
>>>>>
>>>>> your argument that "it's a one time setting" is not enough to have this
>>>>> in the driver. Drivers should not care about clocks anymore, this should
>>>>> have been done on another layer.
>>>>
>>>> Hwmod will have no idea on the rate required.
>>>
>>> does the rate need to change ? Also, I have not mentioned hwmod anytime
>>
>> i did mention hwmod, nevermind that part. Still I'm not sure where is
>> the right place to handle this.
>>
>
> Aren't the omap_device_pm_latency callbacks the right place to do it?
It is a one time setting. These callbacks get called everytime
pm_runtime_get_sync and pm_runtime_put_sync are called.
IMHO this is not the right place.
>
> e.g. in the following snippet from mach-omap2/temp_sensor_device.c
>
> +static struct omap_device_pm_latency omap_temp_sensor_latency[] = {
> + {
> + .deactivate_func = omap_device_idle_hwmods,
> + .activate_func = omap_device_enable_hwmods,
> + .flags = OMAP_DEVICE_LATENCY_AUTO_ADJUST,
> + }
> +};
>
> instead of directly pointing activate_func to omap_device_enable_hwmods,
> it could point to a function that sets the required clock rate and then
> enables the hwmod.
>
>
> regards,
> -roger
>
--
Regards and Thanks,
Keerthy
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
