Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758427AbcKDJJN (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2016 05:09:13 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:47472 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750789AbcKDJJK (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2016 05:09:10 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 smtp.codeaurora.org 583B9611D1 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sricharan@codeaurora.org From: "Sricharan" To: "'Stephen Boyd'" Cc: , , , , , References: <1477304297-5248-1-git-send-email-sricharan@codeaurora.org> <1477304297-5248-4-git-send-email-sricharan@codeaurora.org> <20161103203418.GA16026@codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: <20161103203418.GA16026@codeaurora.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] clk: qcom: Set BRANCH_HALT_DELAY flags for venus core0/1 clks Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 14:39:01 +0530 Message-ID: <006701d2367b$19a6ba00$4cf42e00$@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQG+FfkBp35ZYGVHUWKvPRGPq/wjNgG2MEYIAVCmbzKg2INO4A== Content-Language: en-us Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1371 Lines: 32 Hi, > >A better design would be to check if the associated GDSC is in hw >control mode and then skip the checks because the clocks are no >longer under the control of the registers. I presume we only >enable the clocks here to turn on parent clocks which don't turn >on/off automatically, i.e. the PLL. > I was thinking clocks in the powerdomain still needs to be turned on explicitly, these are branch clocks, irrespective of the PLLs. Putting the gdsc in hw_ctrl, only makes the polling on their status invalid. Anyways would be good to be aligned on this. >Given that hw control is a static decision I guess that is an >over-engineered solution though? The problem is that this seems >brittle because we have to keep two things in sync, the branches >and the gdsc. So I guess this is ok, but it deserves a comment >like "GDSC is in HW control" so we know what's going on. Also the >commit text could be more explicit that clocks within the gdsc >power domain don't work when the gdsc is off, and with hw control >of a gdsc we can't tell when the gdsc may be off or on. > ok, i will reword the commit log better as above. So i understand its ok to continue with this way of checking ? since we are always having a static association which never changes, than introducing additional fields in the clk_branch which can get the status of the gdsc. Regards, Sricharan