Re: About clk maintainership [Was: Re: [PULL] Add variants of devm_clk_get for prepared and enabled clocks enabled clocks]

From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: "Russell King" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
	"Michael Turquette" <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	"Claudiu Beznea" <Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com>,
	"Alexandre Belloni" <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	"Lee Jones" <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:REAL TIME CLOCK (RTC) SUBSYSTEM"
	<linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Ludovic Desroches" <Ludovic.Desroches@microchip.com>,
	"Oleksij Rempel" <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>,
	"Alexandru Ardelean" <aardelean@deviqon.com>,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"Jonathan Cameron" <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
	"linux-arm Mailing List" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Alessandro Zummo" <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
	linux-spi <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Wolfram Sang" <wsa@kernel.org>,
	"Sascha Hauer" <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: About clk maintainership [Was: Re: [PULL] Add variants of devm_clk_get for prepared and enabled clocks enabled clocks]
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 11:07:07 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VebJrb2VLSz7j+gX1RsVggHt1hNu7QyMWmPsY7D+UjUFw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <162771727997.714452.2303764341103276867@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 10:41 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
> Quoting Russell King (Oracle) (2021-07-28 13:40:34)
> > > I adapted the Subject in the hope to catch Stephen's and Michael's
> > > attention. My impression is that this thread isn't on their radar yet,
> > > but the topic here seems important enough to get a matching Subject.

> I still wonder if it would be better if we had some sort of DT binding
> that said "turn this clk on when the driver probes this device and keep
> it on until the driver is unbound".

DT is not the only way the clocks are established in the kernel.

> That would probably work well for
> quite a few drivers that don't want to ever call clk_get() or
> clk_prepare_enable() and could tie into the assigned-clock-rates
> property in a way that let us keep the platform details out of the
> drivers.

> We could also go one step further and make a clk pm domain when
> this new property is present and then have the clk be enabled based on
> runtime PM of the device (and if runtime PM is disabled then just enable
> it at driver probe time).

This sounds like a good idea from a usage perspective.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko