DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 50C4060850
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:15:20 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@free-electrons.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] clk: implement clock rate protection mechanism
Message-ID: <20171222021520.GO7997@codeaurora.org>
References: <20171201215200.23523-1-jbrunet@baylibre.com>
 <151373031022.33554.13905466641279532222@resonance>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <151373031022.33554.13905466641279532222@resonance>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1748
Lines: 38

On 12/19, Michael Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Jerome Brunet (2017-12-01 13:51:50)
> > This Patchset is related the RFC [0] and the discussion around
> > CLK_SET_RATE_GATE available here [1]
> > 
> > This patchset introduce clock protection to the CCF core. This can then
> > be used for:
> > 
> > * Provide a way for a consumer to claim exclusivity over the rate control
> >   of a provider. Some clock consumers require that a clock rate must not
> >   deviate from its selected frequency. There can be several reasons for
> >   this, not least of which is that some hardware may not be able to
> >   handle or recover from a glitch caused by changing the clock rate while
> >   the hardware is in operation. For such HW, The ability to get exclusive
> >   control of a clock's rate, and release that exclusivity, could be seen
> >   as a fundamental clock rate control primitive. The exclusivity is not
> >   preemptible, so when claimed more than once, is rate is effectively
> >   locked.
> > 
> > * Provide a similar functionality to providers themselves, fixing
> >   CLK_SET_RATE_GATE flag (enforce clock gating along the tree). While
> >   there might still be a few platforms relying the broken implementation,
> >   tests done has shown this change to be pretty safe.
> 
> Applied to clk-protect-rate, with the exception that I did not apply
> "clk: fix CLK_SET_RATE_GATE with clock rate protection" as it breaks
> qcom clk code.
> 
> Stephen, do you plan to fix up the qcom clock code so that the
> SET_RATE_GATE improvement can go in?
> 

I started working on it a while back. Let's see if I can finish
it off this weekend.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project