From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] clk: ti: check clock type before doing autoidle ops Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:37:29 -0800 Message-ID: <20181130153729.GG53235@atomide.com> References: <20181110203115.13335-1-andreas@kemnade.info> <20181110203115.13335-3-andreas@kemnade.info> <154353750560.88331.11814738542436183126@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <20181130071534.0a6cd455@kemnade.info> <154356242517.88331.8496814814468751012@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <9eb7b090-4803-d389-4112-3bf058385b2e@ti.com> <154356463284.88331.13323307899580657085@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tero Kristo Cc: Stephen Boyd , Andreas Kemnade , bcousson@baylibre.com, letux-kernel@openphoenux.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, paul@pwsan.com List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Hi, * Tero Kristo [181130 09:21]: > On 30/11/2018 09:57, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > No that is not preferred. Can the omap2_clk_deny_idle() function be > > integrated closer into the clk framework in some way that allows it to > > be part of the clk_ops structure? And then have that take a clk_hw > > structure instead of a struct clk? I haven't looked at this in any > > detail whatsoever so I may be way off right now. > > It could be added under the main clk_ops struct, however this would > introduce two new func pointers to it which are not used by anything else > but OMAP. Are you aware of any other platforms requiring similar feature? >>From consumer usage point of view, I'm still wondering about the relationship of clk_deny_idle() and clkdm_deny_idle(). It seems that we need to allow reset control drivers call clk_deny_idle() for the duration of reset. And it seems the clk_deny_idle() should propagate to also up to the related clock domain driver to do clkdm_deny_idle(). So maybe clk_deny_idle() is could just be something like: dev = clk_get_device(clk); ... error = pm_runtime_get(dev); ... pm_runtime_put(dev); ... And that way it would just propagate to the parent clock domain driver and the clock framework does not need to know about clockdomains. A clockdomain could be just a genpd domain. Or do you guys have better ideas? Regards, Tony