On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Mark Langsdorf
[off-list ref] wrote:

Looks pretty good to me.  Some tedious nitpicks and discussion below.
<snip>

+static int hb_voltage_change(unsigned int freq)
+{
+       int i;
+       u32 msg[7];
+
+       msg[0] = HB_CPUFREQ_CHANGE_NOTE;
+       msg[1] = freq / 1000000;
+       for (i = 2; i < 7; i++)
+               msg[i] = 0;
+
+       return pl320_ipc_transmit(msg);
+}
+
+static int hb_cpufreq_clk_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
+                               unsigned long action, void *hclk)
+{
+       struct clk_notifier_data *clk_data = hclk;
+       int i = 0;
+
+       if (action == PRE_RATE_CHANGE) {
+               if (clk_data->new_rate > clk_data->old_rate)
+                       while (hb_voltage_change(clk_data->new_rate))
+                               if (i++ > 15)

There are a few magic numbers here.  How about something like:

#define HB_VOLT_CHANGE_MAX_TRIES 15

Maybe do the same for the i2c message length?

+                                       return NOTIFY_STOP;

How about NOTIFY_BAD?  It more clearly signals that an error has occurred.

You could also return notifier_from_errno(-ETIMEDOUT) here if you
prefer but that would only be for the sake of readability.
clk_set_rate doesn't actually return the notifier error code in the
event of a notifier abort.

+       } else if (action == POST_RATE_CHANGE) {
+               if (clk_data->new_rate < clk_data->old_rate)
+                       while (hb_voltage_change(clk_data->new_rate))
+                               if (i++ > 15)
+                                       break;

Same as above.  It is true that the clock framework does nothing with
post-rate change notifier aborts but that might change in the future.

+       }
+
+       return NOTIFY_DONE;
+}
+
+static struct notifier_block hb_cpufreq_clk_nb = {
+       .notifier_call = hb_cpufreq_clk_notify,
+};
+

Do you have any plans to convert your voltage change routine over to
the regulator framework?  Likewise do you plan to use the OPP library
in the future?  I can understand if you do not do that since your
regulator/dvfs programming model makes things very simple for you.

The reason I bring this up is that I did float a patch a while back
for a generalized dvfs notifier handler.  The prereqs for using it are
1) ccf, 2) regulator fwk, 3) opp definitions.  Here is the patch:
https://github.com/mturquette/linux/commit/05a280bbc0819a6858d73088a632666f0c7f68a4

And an example usage in the OMAP CPUfreq driver:
https://github.com/mturquette/linux/commit/958f10bb98a293aa912e7eb9cd6edbdc51c1c04a

I understand if this approach incurs too much software overhead for
you but I wanted to throw it out there.  It might working nicely in
the cpufreq-cpu0 driver or some other "generic" CPUfreq driver for
implementing DVFS.

Regards,
Mike