LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@free-electrons.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] clk: implement clock rate protection mechanism
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:22:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1517217778.3153.1.camel@baylibre.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171222021520.GO7997@codeaurora.org>

On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 18:15 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 12/19, Michael Turquette wrote:
> > Quoting Jerome Brunet (2017-12-01 13:51:50)
> > > This Patchset is related the RFC [0] and the discussion around
> > > CLK_SET_RATE_GATE available here [1]
> > > 
> > > This patchset introduce clock protection to the CCF core. This can then
> > > be used for:
> > > 
> > > * Provide a way for a consumer to claim exclusivity over the rate control
> > >   of a provider. Some clock consumers require that a clock rate must not
> > >   deviate from its selected frequency. There can be several reasons for
> > >   this, not least of which is that some hardware may not be able to
> > >   handle or recover from a glitch caused by changing the clock rate while
> > >   the hardware is in operation. For such HW, The ability to get exclusive
> > >   control of a clock's rate, and release that exclusivity, could be seen
> > >   as a fundamental clock rate control primitive. The exclusivity is not
> > >   preemptible, so when claimed more than once, is rate is effectively
> > >   locked.
> > > 
> > > * Provide a similar functionality to providers themselves, fixing
> > >   CLK_SET_RATE_GATE flag (enforce clock gating along the tree). While
> > >   there might still be a few platforms relying the broken implementation,
> > >   tests done has shown this change to be pretty safe.
> > 
> > Applied to clk-protect-rate, with the exception that I did not apply
> > "clk: fix CLK_SET_RATE_GATE with clock rate protection" as it breaks
> > qcom clk code.
> > 
> > Stephen, do you plan to fix up the qcom clock code so that the
> > SET_RATE_GATE improvement can go in?
> > 
> 
> I started working on it a while back. Let's see if I can finish
> it off this weekend.
> 

Hi Stephen,

Have you been able find something to fix the qcom code regarding this issue ?

Cheers
Jerome

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-29  9:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-01 21:51 Jerome Brunet
2017-12-01 21:51 ` [PATCH v5 01/10] clk: fix incorrect usage of ENOSYS Jerome Brunet
2017-12-01 21:51 ` [PATCH v5 02/10] clk: take the prepare lock out of clk_core_set_parent Jerome Brunet
2017-12-01 21:51 ` [PATCH v5 03/10] clk: add clk_core_set_phase_nolock function Jerome Brunet
2017-12-01 21:51 ` [PATCH v5 04/10] clk: rework calls to round and determine rate callbacks Jerome Brunet
2017-12-01 21:51 ` [PATCH v5 05/10] clk: use round rate to bail out early in set_rate Jerome Brunet
2017-12-01 21:51 ` [PATCH v5 06/10] clk: add clock protection mechanism to clk core Jerome Brunet
2017-12-01 21:51 ` [PATCH v5 07/10] clk: cosmetic changes to clk_summary debugfs entry Jerome Brunet
2017-12-01 21:51 ` [PATCH v5 08/10] clk: fix CLK_SET_RATE_GATE with clock rate protection Jerome Brunet
2018-03-30  8:20   ` Jerome Brunet
2017-12-01 21:51 ` [PATCH v5 09/10] clk: add clk_rate_exclusive api Jerome Brunet
2017-12-01 21:52 ` [PATCH v5 10/10] clk: fix set_rate_range when current rate is out of range Jerome Brunet
2017-12-20  0:38 ` [PATCH v5 00/10] clk: implement clock rate protection mechanism Michael Turquette
2017-12-20 17:45   ` Jerome Brunet
2017-12-22  2:15   ` Stephen Boyd
2018-01-29  9:22     ` Jerome Brunet [this message]
2018-02-01 17:43       ` Stephen Boyd
2018-02-02 12:50         ` Jerome Brunet
2018-04-23 18:21           ` Michael Turquette
2018-05-24 14:53             ` Jerome Brunet

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=1517217778.3153.1.camel@baylibre.com \
    --to=jbrunet@baylibre.com \
    --cc=khilman@baylibre.com \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
    --cc=quentin.schulz@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] clk: implement clock rate protection mechanism' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).