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;
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:52:03 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
Cc:     andersson@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, rafael@kernel.org,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, johan@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add CPU clock provider support
Message-ID: <20221117115203.356vexlpca746o6m@bogus>
References: <20221117053145.10409-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
 <20221117101903.sw3hxaruj5sfhybw@bogus>
 <20221117111207.GA93179@thinkpad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221117111207.GA93179@thinkpad>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 04:42:07PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:19:03AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > 
> > Why do you need the above 3 changes if the below(4/4) will ensure
> > cpufreq_get(cpu) returns the clock frequency. I was expecting to drop the
> > whole "confusing" clock bindings and the unnecessary clock provider.
> > 
> > Can't we just use cpufreq_get(cpu) ?
> > 
> 
> This can be possible for OPP implementations for the CPUs but not for other
> peripherals making use of OPP framework like GPU etc... Moreover this may end
> up with different code path for CPUs and other peripherals inside OPP framework.
> 

Fair enough, you can use this for non-CPU devices. But you are adding this for
CPUs here. Is the consumer unaware that this is a CPU or non-CPU device ?
If so, make sense. Otherwise, it is unnecessary to go through the clk
framework to get CPU frequency.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep