From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Yan Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq-dt: support cluster level clock Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 22:03:31 +0800 Message-ID: <20150303140331.GA11325@leoy-linaro> References: <1425387817-11382-1-git-send-email-leo.yan@linaro.org> <1425387817-11382-2-git-send-email-leo.yan@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com ([209.85.192.174]:35909 "EHLO mail-pd0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754262AbbCCODj (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2015 09:03:39 -0500 Received: by pdbnh10 with SMTP id nh10so25045654pdb.3 for ; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 06:03:38 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Shawn Guo , Thomas Petazzoni , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 06:40:23PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 3 March 2015 at 18:33, Leo Yan wrote: > > In the previous code, cpufreq-dt driver support single clock shared by > > all CPUs or every CPU has dedicated clock; but it cannot support cluster > > level clock domain, which is very common implementation for ARM SoCs. > > > > So this patch add the support for cluster level clock; which use the > > platform parameter "clk_domain_boundary" to indicate whether the clock > > domain is bound to system level, cluster level or CPU level. > > > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan > > No. We aren't going to do it this way. You just test your current SoC where > all CPUs share clock line. The other SoC that might come later, where > clocks are per cluster, can be handled later. > > So, for now you don't need any changes in the driver I believe. Correct, current SoC shares one clock line. I'm just thinking to finish things in one time. From my previous experience, clocks per cluster are common cases for ARM's multi-clusters, so i think it's reasonable to add related support. Regarding of testing this patch, i created two virtual clocks for every cluster and passed the test. Do u think this is acceptable? Thanks, Leo Yan