Re: [PATCH 1/1] clk: Add notifier support inclk_prepare/clk_unprepare

[Peter De Schrijver]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:01:09PM +0100, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Colin Cross (2013-03-21 17:06:25)
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Mike Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > To my knowledge, devfreq performs one task: implements an algorithm
> > > (typically one that loops/polls) and applies this heuristic towards a
> > > dvfs transition.
> > >
> > > It is a policy layer, a high level layer.  It should not be used as a
> > > lower-level mechanism.  Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
> > >
> > > I think the very idea of the clk framework calling into devfreq is
> > > backwards.  Ideally a devfreq driver would call clk_set_rate as part of
> > > it's target callback.  This is analogous to a cpufreq .target callback
> > > which calls clk_set_rate and regulator_set_voltage.  Can you imagine the
> > > clock framework cross-calling into cpufreq when clk_set_rate is called?
> > > I think that would be strange.
> > >
> > > I think that all of this discussion highlights the fact that there is a
> > > missing piece of infrastructure.  It isn't devfreq or clock rate-change
> > > notifiers.  It is that there is not a dvfs mechanism which neatly builds
> > > on top of these lower-level frameworks (clocks & regulators).  Clearly
> > > some higher-level abstraction layer is needed.
> > 
> > I went through all of this on Tegra2.  For a while I had a
> > dvfs_set_rate api for drivers that needed to modify the voltage when
> > they updated a clock, but I ended up dropping it.  Drivers rarely care
> > about the voltage, all they want to do is set their clock rate.  The
> > voltage necessary to support that clock is an implementation detail of
> > the silicon that is irrelevant to the driver
> 
> Hi Colin,
> 
> I agree about voltage scaling being an implementation detail,  but I
> think that drivers similarly do not care about enabling clocks, clock
> domains, power domains, voltage domains, etc.  The just want to say
> "give me what I need to turn on and run", and "I'm done with that stuff
> now, lazily turn off if you want to".  Runtime pm gives drivers that
> abstraction layer today.
> 
> There is a need for a similar abstraction layer for dvfs or, more
> generically, an abstraction layer for performance.  It is true that a
> driver doesn't care about scaling it's voltage, but it also might not
> care that its functional clock is changing rate, or that memory needs to
> run faster, or that an async bridge or interface clock needs to change
> it's rate.
> 

Drivers are the ones which need to indicate their performance constraints.
A single voltage domain can contain many blocks and also the clock can be
shared (eg. all graphics on Tegra20 and Tegra30 run from the same PLL, even
though there is a per block postdivider, we still want to vary the PLL
depending on load). The only realistic way of stating this kind of constraints
is using the clockrate I think. I don't see which other 'metric' would be
useful across different IP blocks.

Cheers,

Peter.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/