On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:46:49AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:

On 06/18/2014 11:23 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:

quoted

On 06/17/2014 06:15 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

On 06/17/2014 06:16 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:

quoted

On 06/16/2014 10:02 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

On 06/16/2014 07:35 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:

quoted

+#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.

Yes. I'd expect those to be maintained per-client, and so the clock core
(or whatever higher level code implements clk_set_floor/ceiling)
performs the logic that "blends" together all the different requests
from different clients.

As an aside, for audio usage, I would expect clk_set_rate to be a
per-client (rather than per HW clock) operation too, and to error out if
one client says it wants to set pll_a to the rate needed for
44.1KHz-based audio and a different client wants the rate for
48KHz-based audio.

From what I remember, Mike was fairly strongly opposing the idea of
virtual clocks, but what you're proposing here sounds like it would
assume the existence of virtual clocks. clk_set_rate() per client
doesn't work with the current API as I understand it.

Or perhaps what you're proposing isn't about the individual clocks at
all but rather about a mechanism to express constraints for a set of
clocks?

Thierry