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, 24 Nov 2022 10:54:43 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>, Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, andersson@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] OPP: Disallow "opp-hz" property without a
 corresponding clk
Message-ID: <20221124052443.GA5119@thinkpad>
References: <cover.1669012140.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <c03c4f2b9d4dcc3264d1902606c6c5c464b4b043.1669012140.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <Y3snGQet8yc7HnJK@hovoldconsulting.com>
 <20221121073817.7ollj7jeixrx5og5@vireshk-i7>
 <Y3sryFh84eK/sWKF@hovoldconsulting.com>
 <20221121083036.ppwfprrheuf7xl7c@vireshk-i7>
 <20221122132633.GB157542@thinkpad>
 <20221124042304.pk3rh7nfkanhlgsm@vireshk-i7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20221124042304.pk3rh7nfkanhlgsm@vireshk-i7>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 09:53:04AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22-11-22, 18:56, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > If there is no .set_rate() callback implemented by the clock provider, it won't
> > hurt, right?
> 
> It shouldn't, I guess. Well, in that case, is the first patch even
> required ? Maybe we should keep it, this makes clear that we won't
> even call set_rate(), irrespective of the face that it is implemented
> or not.
> 

I don't think that detail is required to be made explicit. If someone cares,
they can easlily find out by glancing through the OPP code.

So IMO, we don't need patch 1/2.

> Also, the clk provider may not be part of this file later on, for
> other SoC versions, and it is better in that case too.
> 

We cannot predict what the HW guys will come up with ;) But as said above, I
don't think it is necessary to to make it explicit.

Thanks,
Mani

> -- 
> viresh

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்