Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <c221873f-f230-0cce-e120-7e3cc732cf00@i2se.com>
References: <20220815-rpi-fix-4k-60-v1-0-c52bd642f7c6@cerno.tech> <20220815-rpi-fix-4k-60-v1-2-c52bd642f7c6@cerno.tech> <20220914155035.88E45C433C1@smtp.kernel.org> <50e8f1e8-806a-3599-7cbe-0c7d4bec1c51@i2se.com> <20220914180508.0EDD9C433D6@smtp.kernel.org> <c221873f-f230-0cce-e120-7e3cc732cf00@i2se.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] clk: bcm: rpi: Add a function to retrieve the maximum
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Dom Cobley <popcornmix@gmail.com>,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To:     Broadcom internal kernel review list 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Emma Anholt <emma@anholt.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com>,
        Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2022 11:14:56 -0700
User-Agent: alot/0.10
Message-Id: <20220914181458.C6FCCC433C1@smtp.kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Stefan Wahren (2022-09-14 11:09:04)
> Am 14.09.22 um 20:05 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> > Quoting Stefan Wahren (2022-09-14 10:45:48)
> >> Am 14.09.22 um 17:50 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> >>> Furthermore, I wonder if even that part needs to be implemented.  Why
> >>> not make a direct call to rpi_firmware_property() and get the max rat=
e?
> >>> All of that can live in the drm driver. Making it a generic API that
> >>> takes a 'struct clk' means that it looks like any clk can be passed,
> >>> when that isn't true. It would be better to restrict it to the one use
> >>> case so that the scope of the problem doesn't grow. I understand that=
 it
> >>> duplicates a few lines of code, but that looks like a fair tradeoff v=
s.
> >>> exposing an API that can be used for other clks in the future.
> >> it would be nice to keep all the Rpi specific stuff out of the DRM
> >> driver, since there more users of it.
> > Instead of 'all' did you mean 'any'?
> yes

Why?