From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tglx@linutronix.de (Thomas Gleixner) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 00:55:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [PATCH RFC] clk: add support for automatic parent handling In-Reply-To: <4DB20091.1070509@codeaurora.org> References: <1303308457-7501-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20110420185922.GD31131@pengutronix.de> <20110421074214.GE15233@pengutronix.de> <20110421120656.GF15233@pengutronix.de> <4DB20091.1070509@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On 04/22/2011 09:57 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Colin Cross wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner > > > wrote: > > > > Another thing I'm pondering is to provide the ability to maintain > > > > separate clk trees. So you can have individual domains which have > > > > their per clk tree locking. Would that make sense ? > > > > > > Clock trees are likely to be linked somewhere - an external clock chip > > > that drives the main clock input on the SoC, or an SoC clock output > > > that drives a chip with an internal clock tree. Domains would have to > > > be dynamically managed to ensure two clocks from different clock chips > > > that become linked are moved under the same clock lock. Probably > > > easier to keep a global lock. > > > > Ok. It's easy enough to split later if the need arises. > > MSM certainly has the need for having independent clock trees. I would like > support for this to be in from the start otherwise it's going to really screw > clocks in one of the trees. Are they completely independent or do you need a global synchronization mechanism between those clock trees as well ? Thanks, tglx