From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: skannan@codeaurora.org (Saravana Kannan)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:12:20 -0700
Subject: [RFC PATCH] clk: add extension API
In-Reply-To: <20120531082309.GP8026@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com>
References: <1338285540-24407-1-git-send-email-pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>
 <4FC5DFCF.1020606@codeaurora.org> <20120530194059.GA13243@gmail.com>
 <4FC6E5B2.2010700@codeaurora.org>
 <20120531082309.GP8026@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <4FC7DEB4.3000208@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 05/31/2012 01:23 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 05:29:54AM +0200, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>> On 05/30/2012 12:40 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
>>> On 20120530-01:52, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/2012 2:58 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
>>>>> Add an extension API for clocks. This allows clocktypes to provide extensions
>>>>> for features which are uncommon and cannot be easily mapped onto normal clock
>>>>> framework concecpts. eg: resetting blocks, configuring clock phase etc.
>>>>
>>>> This seems rather generic. Why not add more specific APIs/concepts like
>>>> clk_reset(), clk_set_phase(), etc.? If they don't map, maybe we should
>>>> make them map.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I also wonder if exposing some of these knobs should be done in the
>>> basic clock types.  Meaning that instead of having additional calls in
>>> the clk.h API those calls could be exposed by the basic clock types that
>>> map to the actions.
>>>
>>> The question that needs to be answered is this: do generic drivers need
>>> access to these additional functions (clk.h) or just the platform code
>>> which implements some of the clock logic (basic clock types&
>>> platform-speciic clock types).
>>
>> One of the main reason for the common clock framework is so that each
>> platform doesn't have it's own extension and have mostly similar code
>> repeat all over the place. So, having clock APIs outside of clk.h
>> doesn't make sense when we look at the direction we want the code base
>> to proceed in.
>
> I don't think this will lead to 'mostly similar code repeat all over the
> place'. I don't know of any intree SoC which has a similar requirement.
> So which code duplication would this cause?

It's not clear what you plan to use this API for. So, I can't really 
answer if any intree SoC needs it. But if this is about reset signals, 
it's definitely needed for MSM too. I was planning on bringing this up 
after the basic clock API implementation in the clock framework is 
usable for MSM.

-Saravana

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.