From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA78C43217 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 05:24:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229499AbiKXFYy (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Nov 2022 00:24:54 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44780 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229455AbiKXFYw (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Nov 2022 00:24:52 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBF47BF824 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 21:24:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id b11so523342pjp.2 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 21:24:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SUP7Am6dqKQpcjzJq6n2SpwU7duYqMrmSYTw//dN1jE=; b=Z0mxaK7mlfH8Yar65Mnq4TMvrw6J4J4efzZFOX/tgsJWxdp5QS350PG+K1obsGeTLs nwYWMfWQKWgPN0p16aOlnN9Xp6IuofS5E6iGDi753bhKMKHkUZYzSP1ZEh+OIrapb8c2 qYI+knxRKQq07uf9uBlAYtLcSEoWCg8RkisveC+WiXsV8IycvUYvp6/a4u4Itt9clCph Eo+55y4Mf6Icq+oRHYI2i9YreOoYxyWmQ+KuBkjf7aqBthfIgAQgC1y3lPUd3qBJ1WjJ Z2F7ot0w8x/qX4yEaXZoXrScB6wy0vMRShosHjou+nIG5ZuFZQvQ7Lvh+Bp9eQ6hRnk6 LDKA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SUP7Am6dqKQpcjzJq6n2SpwU7duYqMrmSYTw//dN1jE=; b=VJtZpJjly5g1sHm/utAo7HMVdWZHzOEJRn96cUx7rwTktDi0E1/y5U+F7nF9FnzuU5 lC6t7xEibnn+IpNPmpdODaccnk8XZDU779JqHucxEgA4oxokuwCx8IBQjtU7iub1BOab VDwraGNBKejxIOv8huc2YmgBeQlN2gXU1v27taMwjHOi2ImzdYHzgF+tAoCjMI1+kjai I1+eFxDk7sEoDRFM4GlxF8c/KcyoIPsQJF/zntI2BEgrTNowi7tJt9tTCEYj+BLZ+6KT nyVQ/7NVyl5LBvqhXQ8s0D0DWTum85cW/lqyZKOdatI1qpjky9HBLx1kTQCdifljAcf6 n6VA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pniL8KwLo8fbFGU4tsoSIIAFIUY8/Kk3MQByKYwlVIwRL9avCOW qaa76zJ4+bhumauOqqISVX2c X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf4l9NPUP6hc/93wp2DgPah9wde9Y1AD7ULpN3RN77cOgH/3wyTWu9HsVxGuzHuTSSQ1wwGvHw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:898b:b0:218:bbfb:72e1 with SMTP id v11-20020a17090a898b00b00218bbfb72e1mr16563515pjn.64.1669267491235; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 21:24:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from thinkpad ([59.92.97.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n14-20020a17090ac68e00b00213c7cf21c0sm303574pjt.5.2022.11.23.21.24.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 23 Nov 2022 21:24:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 10:54:43 +0530 From: Manivannan Sadhasivam To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Johan Hovold , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , andersson@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] OPP: Disallow "opp-hz" property without a corresponding clk Message-ID: <20221124052443.GA5119@thinkpad> References: <20221121073817.7ollj7jeixrx5og5@vireshk-i7> <20221121083036.ppwfprrheuf7xl7c@vireshk-i7> <20221122132633.GB157542@thinkpad> <20221124042304.pk3rh7nfkanhlgsm@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20221124042304.pk3rh7nfkanhlgsm@vireshk-i7> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 09:53:04AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22-11-22, 18:56, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > If there is no .set_rate() callback implemented by the clock provider, it won't > > hurt, right? > > It shouldn't, I guess. Well, in that case, is the first patch even > required ? Maybe we should keep it, this makes clear that we won't > even call set_rate(), irrespective of the face that it is implemented > or not. > I don't think that detail is required to be made explicit. If someone cares, they can easlily find out by glancing through the OPP code. So IMO, we don't need patch 1/2. > Also, the clk provider may not be part of this file later on, for > other SoC versions, and it is better in that case too. > We cannot predict what the HW guys will come up with ;) But as said above, I don't think it is necessary to to make it explicit. Thanks, Mani > -- > viresh -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்