From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1424264AbdD1HSC (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 28 Apr 2017 03:18:02 -0400
Received: from hqemgate15.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.64]:5761 "EHLO
        hqemgate15.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1162010AbdD1HRu (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 28 Apr 2017 03:17:50 -0400
X-PGP-Universal: processed;
        by hqpgpgate101.nvidia.com on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:17:48 -0700
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:17:43 +0300
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
Message-ID: <20170428071743.GL30730@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com>
References: <1490103807-21821-1-git-send-email-pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>
 <20170412164605.GO7065@codeaurora.org>
 <20170413074819.GS30730@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170413074819.GS30730@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com>
X-NVConfidentiality: public
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Originating-IP: [10.21.24.170]
X-ClientProxiedBy: UKMAIL101.nvidia.com (10.26.138.13) To UKMAIL101.nvidia.com
 (10.26.138.13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.