Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:37:29 -0800
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
To:     Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>, bcousson@baylibre.com,
        letux-kernel@openphoenux.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        mturquette@baylibre.com, paul@pwsan.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] clk: ti: check clock type before doing autoidle
 ops
Message-ID: <20181130153729.GG53235@atomide.com>
References: <20181110203115.13335-1-andreas@kemnade.info>
 <20181110203115.13335-3-andreas@kemnade.info>
 <154353750560.88331.11814738542436183126@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <20181130071534.0a6cd455@kemnade.info>
 <154356242517.88331.8496814814468751012@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <9eb7b090-4803-d389-4112-3bf058385b2e@ti.com>
 <154356463284.88331.13323307899580657085@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <eca27a46-2ca3-1a02-c0c8-c1c00b3b2f46@ti.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <eca27a46-2ca3-1a02-c0c8-c1c00b3b2f46@ti.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

* Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> [181130 09:21]:
> On 30/11/2018 09:57, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > No that is not preferred. Can the omap2_clk_deny_idle() function be
> > integrated closer into the clk framework in some way that allows it to
> > be part of the clk_ops structure? And then have that take a clk_hw
> > structure instead of a struct clk? I haven't looked at this in any
> > detail whatsoever so I may be way off right now.
> 
> It could be added under the main clk_ops struct, however this would
> introduce two new func pointers to it which are not used by anything else
> but OMAP. Are you aware of any other platforms requiring similar feature?

From consumer usage point of view, I'm still wondering about
the relationship of clk_deny_idle() and clkdm_deny_idle().

It seems that we need to allow reset control drivers call
clk_deny_idle() for the duration of reset. And it seems the
clk_deny_idle() should propagate to also up to the related
clock domain driver to do clkdm_deny_idle().

So maybe clk_deny_idle() is could just be something like:

dev = clk_get_device(clk);
...
error = pm_runtime_get(dev);
...
pm_runtime_put(dev);
...

And that way it would just propagate to the parent clock
domain driver and the clock framework does not need to know
about clockdomains. A clockdomain could be just a genpd
domain.

Or do you guys have better ideas?

Regards,

Tony