All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
	"Russell King" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	<linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Tang Yuantian <Yuantian.Tang@freescale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] cpufreq: qoriq: Don't look at clock implementation details
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:17:07 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1443215827.32298.130.camel@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3374654.Hks5DeSGVV@vostro.rjw.lan>

On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock interface
> > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a
> > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming that
> > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock.
> > > 
> > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the clock
> > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree
> > > description of the mux options.
> > > 
> > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only exposes
> > > options that are valid.  The cpufreq driver was currently being overly
> > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq =
> > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum
> > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed depends on
> > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar
> > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask
> > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices that
> > > are no longer valid.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
> > > ---
> > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes
> > > to clk api usage
> > > 
> > >  drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++---------------------
> > > -------
> > >  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set?

As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can apply 
these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM trees, 
each of which will have patches that depend on it.

-Scott

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Tang Yuantian <Yuantian.Tang@freescale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] cpufreq: qoriq: Don't look at clock implementation details
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:17:07 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1443215827.32298.130.camel@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3374654.Hks5DeSGVV@vostro.rjw.lan>

On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock interface
> > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a
> > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming that
> > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock.
> > > 
> > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the clock
> > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree
> > > description of the mux options.
> > > 
> > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only exposes
> > > options that are valid.  The cpufreq driver was currently being overly
> > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq =
> > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum
> > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed depends on
> > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar
> > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask
> > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices that
> > > are no longer valid.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
> > > ---
> > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes
> > > to clk api usage
> > > 
> > >  drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++---------------------
> > > -------
> > >  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set?

As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can apply 
these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM trees, 
each of which will have patches that depend on it.

-Scott


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: scottwood@freescale.com (Scott Wood)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 5/5] cpufreq: qoriq: Don't look at clock implementation details
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:17:07 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1443215827.32298.130.camel@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3374654.Hks5DeSGVV@vostro.rjw.lan>

On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock interface
> > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a
> > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming that
> > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock.
> > > 
> > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the clock
> > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree
> > > description of the mux options.
> > > 
> > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only exposes
> > > options that are valid.  The cpufreq driver was currently being overly
> > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq =
> > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum
> > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed depends on
> > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar
> > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask
> > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices that
> > > are no longer valid.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
> > > ---
> > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes
> > > to clk api usage
> > > 
> > >  drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++---------------------
> > > -------
> > >  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set?

As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can apply 
these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM trees, 
each of which will have patches that depend on it.

-Scott

  reply	other threads:[~2015-09-25 21:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-20  4:29 [PATCH v3 0/5] clk: qoriq: Move chip-specific knowledge into driver Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29 ` Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29 ` Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] powerpc/fsl: Move fsl_guts.h out of arch/powerpc Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29   ` Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29   ` Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] clk: qoriq: Move chip-specific knowledge into driver Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29   ` Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29   ` Scott Wood
2015-10-15 19:53   ` Stephen Boyd
2015-10-15 19:53     ` Stephen Boyd
2015-09-20  4:29 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] clk: qoriq: Add ls2080a support Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29   ` Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29   ` Scott Wood
2015-10-15 19:53   ` Stephen Boyd
2015-10-15 19:53     ` Stephen Boyd
2015-09-20  4:29 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] clk: Add consumer APIs for discovering possible parent clocks Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29   ` Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29   ` Scott Wood
2015-10-15 20:03   ` Scott Wood
2015-10-15 20:03     ` Scott Wood
2015-10-15 20:03     ` Scott Wood
2015-12-07 20:44     ` Scott Wood
2015-12-07 20:44       ` Scott Wood
2015-12-07 20:44       ` Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] cpufreq: qoriq: Don't look at clock implementation details Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29   ` Scott Wood
2015-09-20  4:29   ` Scott Wood
2015-09-22 19:46   ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-22 19:46     ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-25 21:42     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-25 21:42       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-25 21:17       ` Scott Wood [this message]
2015-09-25 21:17         ` Scott Wood
2015-09-25 21:17         ` Scott Wood
2015-09-25 21:50         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-25 21:50           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-26 18:14           ` Li Yang
2016-02-26 18:14             ` Li Yang
2016-02-26 18:16             ` Scott Wood
2016-02-26 18:16               ` Scott Wood
2016-02-26 18:16               ` Scott Wood
2016-02-26 21:01               ` Li Yang
2016-02-26 21:01                 ` Li Yang
2016-02-26 21:46                 ` Scott Wood
2016-02-26 21:46                   ` Scott Wood
2016-02-26 21:46                   ` Scott Wood
2015-10-23 22:39 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] clk: qoriq: Move chip-specific knowledge into driver Scott Wood
2015-10-23 22:39   ` Scott Wood
2015-10-23 22:39   ` Scott Wood

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=1443215827.32298.130.camel@freescale.com \
    --to=scottwood@freescale.com \
    --cc=Yuantian.Tang@freescale.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.