From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
To: Jan Dakinevich <jan.dakinevich@salutedevices.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kernel@salutedevices.com,
Jan Dakinevich <jan.dakinevich@salutedevices.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: allow to skip clk_core_req_round_rate_nolock()
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:20:49 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c79909e4e55badc8f094d2ff8c4d34ca.sboyd@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240126201433.1830600-1-jan.dakinevich@salutedevices.com>
Quoting Jan Dakinevich (2024-01-26 12:14:33)
> Calling of clk_core_req_round_rate_nolock() can be time-consuming in a
> case of deep hierarchy with multiple dividers/parents. But if the clock
> already has exactly the same rate as desired, there is no need to
> determine how it could be rounded.
What exactly are you trying to avoid? Is this an optimization or a bug
fix? TL;DR: I'm unlikely to apply this patch.
I could see some driver implementing round_rate()/determine_rate() in a
way that rounds the rate passed in, so that even if the rate is what the
clk is running at _right now_, it still wants to change it to something
else, or at least call down into the driver to call the set_rate clk_op.
Applying this patch will break that. The contract is that
clk_set_rate(rate) == clk_set_rate(clk_round_rate(rate)). It doesn't
look like anything needs to change.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-22 23:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-26 20:14 [PATCH] clk: allow to skip clk_core_req_round_rate_nolock() Jan Dakinevich
2024-02-20 17:34 ` Jan Dakinevich
2024-02-22 23:20 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2024-02-23 21:47 ` Jan Dakinevich
2024-02-29 2:16 ` Stephen Boyd
2024-03-09 21:20 ` Jan Dakinevich
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=c79909e4e55badc8f094d2ff8c4d34ca.sboyd@kernel.org \
--to=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=jan.dakinevich@salutedevices.com \
--cc=kernel@salutedevices.com \
--cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
/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