Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Per-user clock constraints

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On 08/13/2014 11:46 AM, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> Hi Tomeu,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> On Wed,  6 Aug 2014 15:56:03 +0200
> Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > in this v5 of the patchset I have just moved the storage of the clock constraints to the struct clk, as suggested by Stephen. Follows the original cover letter blurb:
> >
> > I'm retaking Rabin's patches [0] for splitting the clk API in two: one API for
> > clk consumers and another for providers. The consumer API uses a clk structure
> > that just keeps track of the consumer and has a reference to the actual
> > clk_core struct, which is used internally.
> >
> > I have kept a patch from Rabin that aims to aid in debugging nested
> > enable/disable calls, though my personal aim is to allow more than one consumer
> > to influence the final, effective frequency rate. For now this is limited to
> > setting floor and ceiling constraints, with the short-term aim of allowing
> > devfreq and thermal drivers to set floor and ceiling frequencies on the memory
> > clock, respectively.
> >
> > For those functions in the consumer clk API that were called from providers, I
> > have added variants to clk-provider.h that are the same only that accept a
> > clk_core instead. These functions are prefixed with clk_provider_.
> >
> > Patch 1/6 just adds a bunch of defines with the goal of having all the renames
> > in their own commit while preserving git-bisectability, with patch 3/6
> > containing the rename itself as generated by the Coccinelle script in [1].
> > Patch 2/6 is needed because sound/soc/mxs/mxs-saif.c calls both the consumer
> > and the provider API. The actual implementation of the API split comes in patch
> > 4/6. I will be happy to organize the refactoring differently if anybody has a
> > better idea.
> >
> > Patch 5/6 warns when there's an unbalanced usage of the enable and disable
> > APIs, and patch 6/6 adds the API for setting floor and ceiling frequencies, per
> > consumer.
>
> I tested your patch series on an at91 platform (sama5d3), and it works
> as expected, but I had to fix some conflicts when applying your patches
> on clk-next, and then got a few errors at compile time.
>
> Anyway here is my branch with all those conflicts resolved: [1]. The
> last commit [2] fixes the build errors (I'll let you squash/split the
> changes as you wish).

Thanks a lot, it has saved me quite some time.

I have just re-run my coccinelle script and added the new file to the 
input file list. Will be sending v6 now.

Regards,

Tomeu

> Best Regards,
>
> Boris
>
> [1]https://github.com/bbrezillon/linux-at91/tree/per-clk-contraints
> [2]https://github.com/bbrezillon/linux-at91/commit/d366c37dcfa5f06de3e27fc3c2807017bece9a2f

--
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/