All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	<linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: Re-evaluate clock rate on min/max update
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:17:43 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170428071743.GL30730@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170413074819.GS30730@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com>

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:48:19AM +0300, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:46:05AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 03/21, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> > > Whenever a user change its min or max rate limit of a clock, we need to
> > > re-evaluate the current clock rate and possibly change it if the new limits
> > > require so. To do this clk_set_rate_range() already calls
> > > clk_core_set_rate_nolock, however this won't have the intended effect
> > > because the core clock rate hasn't changed. To fix this, move the test to
> > > avoid setting the same core clock rate again, to clk_set_rate() so
> > > clk_core_set_rate_nolock() can change the clock rate when min or max have
> > > been updated, even when the core clock rate has not changed.
> > 
> > I'd expect some sort of Fixes: tag here? Or it never worked!?
> 
> I don't think this ever worked.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > I seem to recall some problems here around rate aggregation that
> > we fixed after the patches merged. Sorry, but I have to go back
> > and look at those conversations to refresh my memory and make
> > sure this is all fine.
> > 
> > Are you relying on the rate setting op to be called with the new
> > min/max requirements if the aggregated rate is the same? I don't
> > understand why clk drivers care.
> > 
> 
> No. But I do rely on the rate setting op to be called when a new min or max
> rate would cause the rate to be changed even when there is no new rate request.
> 
> Eg:
> 
> min = 100MHz, max = 500MHz, current rate request is 400MHz, then max changes to
> 300MHz. Today the rate setting op will not be called, while I think it should
> be called to lower the rate to 300MHz.
> 

Any news on this? or do you think this is an unreasonable assumption?

Thanks,

Peter.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-28  7:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-21 13:43 [PATCH] clk: Re-evaluate clock rate on min/max update Peter De Schrijver
2017-04-07 11:44 ` Peter De Schrijver
2017-04-12 16:46 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-04-13  7:48   ` Peter De Schrijver
2017-04-28  7:17     ` Peter De Schrijver [this message]
2017-05-16  7:38       ` Peter De Schrijver
2017-06-01  9:12     ` Stephen Boyd
2017-06-02 10:15       ` Peter De Schrijver
2017-06-02 22:45         ` Stephen Boyd

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=20170428071743.GL30730@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com \
    --to=pdeschrijver@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
    --cc=sboyd@codeaurora.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.