Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add CPU clock provider support

From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: andersson@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, rafael@kernel.org,
	robh+dt@kernel.org, johan@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add CPU clock provider support
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 17:28:07 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221117115807.GF93179@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221117115203.356vexlpca746o6m@bogus>

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 11:52:03AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 04:42:07PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:19:03AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > 
> > > Why do you need the above 3 changes if the below(4/4) will ensure
> > > cpufreq_get(cpu) returns the clock frequency. I was expecting to drop the
> > > whole "confusing" clock bindings and the unnecessary clock provider.
> > > 
> > > Can't we just use cpufreq_get(cpu) ?
> > > 
> > 
> > This can be possible for OPP implementations for the CPUs but not for other
> > peripherals making use of OPP framework like GPU etc... Moreover this may end
> > up with different code path for CPUs and other peripherals inside OPP framework.
> > 
> 
> Fair enough, you can use this for non-CPU devices. But you are adding this for
> CPUs here. Is the consumer unaware that this is a CPU or non-CPU device ?
> If so, make sense. Otherwise, it is unnecessary to go through the clk
> framework to get CPU frequency.
> 

The consumer here is the OPP framework and yes it doesn't have the knowledge of
the device it is dealing with (for this context).

Thanks,
Mani

> -- 
> Regards,
> Sudeep

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்