Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1210596
| From | Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 3/3] clk: introduce CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF flag |
| Date | 2015-08-20 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pZA6C-Cj-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <pUVln-hs-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <pUVlo-hs-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <pYRsS-2l9-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <pZA6C-Cj-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:39:31AM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote: > > In my mind, the fact that we hand off the clock reference is a direct > > result to the clock being critical (or whatever name we want to call > > it). The hand off is a side effect, but the real information we want > > to carry is that it should not be gated. > > I chose the "hand-off" name because I want to set an expectation to > users of this feature. That expectation is that some day they will have > a Linux device driver that claims and manages this "critical clock". > Clearly this is not always the case. Many clocks using this feature will > never have a driver that "owns" them. > > But I wanted to avoid any kind of "always on" or "easy hack to avoid > writing proper driver code" naming convention that encourages bad > behavior down the line. > > Also, the hand-off thing is sort of a big deal. If driver writers only > thought of this as an "alway on" mechanism then subtle bugs might creep > in where drivers are getting and disabling a clock that the author > incorrectly thought would always be enabled. So I'd like the name to > reflect that somehow. > > As always I am open to suggestions. For the record, I think always-on would be just as bad, since it has the same issue of describing the behaviour instead of describing what the clock is. I would think critical is better, and if you feel there's some unexpected behaviour, we can always add some comment / documentation for that (heresy, I know ;)) Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 3/3] clk: introduce CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF flag Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> - 2015-08-20 17:40 +0200
csiph-web