From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] clk: uniphier: add clock data for cpufreq
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:10:56 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161124021056.GJ6095@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNAQ6XeSHd7DbvD1jWeMfOqk8+R27Q-fNDWtXxpRd=OFgjA@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/24, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
>
> 2016-11-24 9:05 GMT+09:00 Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>:
>
> >> +#if 1
> >> + /*
> >> + * TODO:
> >> + * The return type of .round_rate() is "long", which is 32 bit wide on
> >> + * 32 bit systems. Clock rate greater than LONG_MAX (~ 2.15 GHz) is
> >> + * treated as an error. Needs a workaround until the problem is fixed.
> >> + */
> >
> > Just curious is the problem internal to the clk framework because
> > of the clk_ops::round_rate design? Or does the consumer, cpufreq
> > in this case, have to deal with rates that are larger than
> > unsigned long on a 32 bit system? If it's just a clk_ops problem
> > and we need to support rates up to 32 bits wide (~ 4.3 GHz) on
> > the system then the driver could be changed to use
> > .determine_rate() ops and that would allow us to use all the bits
> > of unsigned long to figure out rates.
> >
> > If the problem is rates even larger than unsigned long on 32 bit
> > systems, then at the least I'd like to see some sort of plan to
> > fix that in the framework before merging code. Hopefully it can
> > be done gradually, but as I start looking at it it seems more and
> > more complicated to support this so this will be a long term
> > project.
> >
> > We can discuss the clk API changes needed as well if those are
> > required, but that is another issue that requires changes in
> > other places outside of clk drivers.
> >
>
> I understand your point, but core frame-work changes
> need more careful review than clk data changes in low-level drivers.
> It is too late to be included in v4.10.
>
> If I drop 32bit SoC things, and send v2 only for 64bit SoCs,
> is that acceptable for 4.10-rc1?
Sure. That sounds fine for now. I'll reply to your other thread
with a plan of attack on how to do the framework changes. I think
we need to do those regardless of the outcome of your
investigation.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-24 2:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-26 17:31 [PATCH 1/2] clk: uniphier: add CPU-gear change (cpufreq) support Masahiro Yamada
2016-10-26 17:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] clk: uniphier: add clock data for cpufreq Masahiro Yamada
2016-11-24 0:05 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-11-24 0:57 ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-11-24 2:10 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2016-11-25 11:55 ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-11-23 1:14 ` [PATCH 1/2] clk: uniphier: add CPU-gear change (cpufreq) support Masahiro Yamada
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161124021056.GJ6095@codeaurora.org \
--to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).