On 06/13/2017 04:42 PM, Greg KH wrote:

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 05:13:57PM +0300, Georgi Djakov wrote:

quoted

This patch introduce a new API to get the requirement and configure the
interconnect buses across the entire chipset to fit with the current demand.

The API is using a consumer/provider-based model, where the providers are
the interconnect controllers and the consumers could be various drivers.
The consumers request interconnect resources (path) to an endpoint and set
the desired constraints on this data flow path. The provider(s) receive
requests from consumers and aggregate these requests for all master-slave
pairs on that path. Then the providers configure each participating in the
topology node according to the requested data flow path, physical links and
constraints. The topology could be complicated and multi-tiered and is SoC
specific.

Signed-off-by: Georgi Djakov <redacted>
---
 Documentation/interconnect/interconnect.txt |  65 +++++
 drivers/Kconfig                             |   2 +
 drivers/Makefile                            |   1 +
 drivers/interconnect/Kconfig                |  10 +
 drivers/interconnect/Makefile               |   1 +
 drivers/interconnect/interconnect.c         | 376 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/interconnect-consumer.h       |  72 ++++++
 include/linux/interconnect-provider.h       | 120 +++++++++
 8 files changed, 647 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/interconnect/interconnect.txt
 create mode 100644 drivers/interconnect/Kconfig
 create mode 100644 drivers/interconnect/Makefile
 create mode 100644 drivers/interconnect/interconnect.c
 create mode 100644 include/linux/interconnect-consumer.h
 create mode 100644 include/linux/interconnect-provider.h

diff --git a/Documentation/interconnect/interconnect.txt b/Documentation/interconnect/interconnect.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..f761a2fb553c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/interconnect/interconnect.txt

.rst for new Documenation files please, and hook it up to the larger
documentation build process at the same time.

Ah right, will convert it to rst!

And why are these RFC patches?  Don't you feel they are ready to be
reviewed?  I know I ignore RFC patches for the most part as obviously
the author does not think they are ready :)

I'm trying to raise a discussion around this topic and get more comments
whether this is moving into the right direction and are there any big
concerns left. Its RFC because its not ready to be applied yet, but sure
i will make it a "patch" next time. Reviewing is very welcome!

Thanks,
Georgi