On 06/17/2014 06:15 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/17/2014 06:16 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
On 06/16/2014 10:02 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/16/2014 07:35 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_TEGRA124_EMC +int tegra124_emc_reserve_bandwidth(unsigned int consumer, unsigned long rate); +void tegra124_emc_set_floor(unsigned long freq); +void tegra124_emc_set_ceiling(unsigned long freq); +#else +int tegra124_emc_reserve_bandwidth(unsigned int consumer, unsigned long rate) +{ return -ENODEV; } +void tegra124_emc_set_floor(unsigned long freq) +{ return; } +void tegra124_emc_set_ceiling(unsigned long freq) +{ return; } +#endif
I'll repeat what I said off-list so that we can have the whole conversation on the list:
That looks like a custom Tegra-specific API. I think it'd be much better to integrate this into the common clock framework as a standard clock constraints API. There are other use-cases for clock constraints besides EMC scaling (e.g. some in audio on Tegra, and I'm sure many on other SoCs too).
Yes, I wrote a bit in the cover letter about our requirements and how they map to the CCF. Could you please comment on that?
My comments remain the same. I believe this is something that belongs in the clock driver, or at the least, some API that takes a struct clock as its parameter, so that drivers can use the existing DT clock lookup mechanism.
Ok, let me put this strawman here to see if I have gotten close to what you have in mind:
* add per-client accounting (Rabin's patches referenced before)
* add clk_set_floor, to be used by cpufreq, load stats, etc.
* add clk_set_ceiling, to be used by battery drivers, thermal, etc.
* an EMC driver would collect bandwidth and latency requests from consumers and call clk_set_floor on the EMC clock.
* the EMC driver would also register for rate change notifications in the EMC clock and would update the latency allowance registers at that point.
How does it sound?
Regards,
Tomeu