Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] clk: tegra: Implement Tegra124 shared/cbus clks

[Peter De Schrijver]

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 07:58:26PM +0200, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > As for shared clocks I'm only aware of one use-case, namely EMC scaling.
> > Using clocks for that doesn't seem like the best option to me. While it
> > can probably fix the immediate issue of choosing an appropriate
> > frequency for the EMC clock it isn't a complete solution for the problem
> > that we're trying to solve. From what I understand EMC scaling is one
> > part of ensuring quality of service. The current implementations of that
> > seems to abuse clocks (essentially one X.emc clock per X clock) to
> > signal the amount of memory bandwidth required by any given device. But
> > there are other parts to the puzzle. Latency allowance is one. The value
> > programmed to the latency allowance registers for example depends on the
> > EMC frequency.
> >
> > Has anyone ever looked into using a different framework to model all of
> > these requirements? PM QoS looks like it might fit, but if none of the
> > existing frameworks have what we need, perhaps something new can be
> > created.
> 
> On Exynos we use devfreq, though in that case we monitor performance
> counters to determine how internal buses should be scaled - not sure
> if Tegra SoCs have similar counters that could be used for this
> purpose.  It seems like EMC scaling would fit nicely within the PM QoS
> framework, perhaps with a new PM_QOS_MEMORY_THROUGHPUT class.

We do have counters, however, counters are reactive which is a problem
for some isochronous clients (eg. display). Counters also don't solve
the latency problem.

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/