On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Mark Brown
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:39:59PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:

quoted

Clock rate/parent-change notifiers are requirements for DVFS use-cases,
and they must be paired with something like the
clk_{allow,block}_rate_change() functions to work efficiently. ?I intend
to comment on this later; it's not a simple problem. ?It might be worth
noting that Tero and I implemented a simplified version of this for the
N900.

I'm thinking that if we're going to have clk_{allow,block}_rate_change()
we may as well make that the main interface to enable rate changes - if
a device wants to change the clock rate it allows rate changes using
that interface rather than by disabling the clocks. ?I've got devices
which can do glitch free updates of active clocks so having to disable
would be a real restriction, and cpufreq would have issues with actually
disabling the clock too I expect.

I agree that imposing a "disable clk before changing rate" policy in
the framework core is a bad idea.  During discussion on the
CLK_GATE_SET_RATE flag in the patch #2 Shawn commented that he has
some clks that must be enabled to change their rates (I assume he
means PLLs but that detail doesn't really matter).

Regards,
Mike