From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753877AbZBBHNU (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2009 02:13:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752131AbZBBHNF (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2009 02:13:05 -0500 Received: from utopia.booyaka.com ([72.9.107.138]:53966 "EHLO utopia.booyaka.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751791AbZBBHNE (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2009 02:13:04 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 00:13:02 -0700 (MST) From: Paul Walmsley To: Russell King - ARM Linux cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH E 08/14] OMAP clock: move rate recalc, propagation code up to plat-omap/clock.c In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20090128192551.29333.82943.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20090128192748.29333.5856.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20090129174153.GH18233@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Russell, On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Paul Walmsley wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > I must say that this commit looks very much like a combination of > > my commits from November: > > > > [ARM] omap: move clock propagation into core omap clock code > > [ARM] omap: remove unnecessary calls to propagate_rate() > > [ARM] omap: move propagate_rate() calls into generic omap clock code > > > > which do basically the same thing a little more efficiently, and an > > additional patch from you to call ->recalc after set_rate or > > reparenting a clock. > > > > So I think I can drop everything from this apart from the additional > > recalc calls, and the removal of those omap2_dpllcore_recalc() calls. > > > > Please confirm my suspicions. > > I haven't looked closely at your above three patches for this, but plan to > do so later today. > > Regarding provenance, the patches that I sent you were developed > independently, for clock notifier support. Ultimately, I have no personal > attachment as to whose patches for this go in, if all technical aspects > are equal. Based on a comparison of E 08 with the three omap-clks1 commits you mentioned above, here are some differences that would merit further attention. Some of these you've mentioned in subsequent E-mails. If you use your patches, I would suggest making the following changes: 1. "remove unnecessary calls to propagate_rate()" should keep the propagate_rate(&ck_dpll1) call in omap1_select_table_rate(), since this function is only used by struct clk virtual_clk_mpu. virtual_clk_mpu is farther away from the root of the clock tree than struct clk ck_dpll1. 2. In plat-omap2/clock.c, clk_set_rate() and clk_set_parent() should call propagate_rate() after recalc. 3. Several internal calls to *_recalc() functions can be dropped - specifically, in omap2_reprogram_dpllcore(), omap2_select_table_rate(), omap3_noncore_dpll_set_rate(), and omap3_core_dpll_m2_set_rate(). If you merge E 08, I'd suggest the following changes: 1. In clock24xx.c:omap2_clk_init(), your patches call propagate_rate() on osc_ck and sys_ck immediately after recalcs, which looks like a good idea to me. 2. The mach-omap1/clock.c:omap1_clk_init() change to consolidate the two propagate_rate(&ck_dpll1) calls also is good. Please let me know if you'd like any followup patches here. - Paul