From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Scott Wood Cc: Viresh Kumar , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , Russell King , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Tang Yuantian Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] cpufreq: qoriq: Don't look at clock implementation details Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 23:50:02 +0200 Message-ID: <2148611.GEpYdTfpoR@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <1443215827.32298.130.camel@freescale.com> References: <1442723397-26329-1-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com> <3374654.Hks5DeSGVV@vostro.rjw.lan> <1443215827.32298.130.camel@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" List-ID: On Friday, September 25, 2015 04:17:07 PM Scott Wood wrote: > 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 are no longer valid.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 > > > > --- > > > > 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 > > > > 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. OK, so no objections from the cpufreq side and you have the ACK from Viresh. Thanks, Rafael From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rjw@rjwysocki.net (Rafael J. Wysocki) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 23:50:02 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 5/5] cpufreq: qoriq: Don't look at clock implementation details In-Reply-To: <1443215827.32298.130.camel@freescale.com> References: <1442723397-26329-1-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com> <3374654.Hks5DeSGVV@vostro.rjw.lan> <1443215827.32298.130.camel@freescale.com> Message-ID: <2148611.GEpYdTfpoR@vostro.rjw.lan> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday, September 25, 2015 04:17:07 PM Scott Wood wrote: > 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 > > > > --- > > > > 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 > > > > 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. OK, so no objections from the cpufreq side and you have the ACK from Viresh. Thanks, Rafael