Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1332477 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] clk: qcom: Add support for RPM Clocks

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] clk: qcom: Add support for RPM Clocks Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> - 2016-02-12 01:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] clk: qcom: Add support for RPM Clocks Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@linaro.org> - 2016-02-22 16:40 +0100

#1332477 — Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] clk: qcom: Add support for RPM Clocks

On 12/15, Georgi Djakov wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpm.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpm.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..7b0e85eefe70
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpm.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,290 @@
> +
> +static int clk_rpm_prepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
> +{
> +	struct clk_rpm *r = to_clk_rpm(hw);
> +	unsigned long rate = r->rate;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&rpm_clk_lock);
> +
> +	if (!rate)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	if (r->branch)
> +		rate = !!rate;
> +
> +	ret = clk_rpm_set_rate_active(r, rate);
> +
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +out:
> +	if (!ret)
> +		r->enabled = true;
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&rpm_clk_lock);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}

I don't see any "peer" code in this file. Is there a reason we're
leaving out the active only vs active + sleep set style clocks?

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1339656

On 02/12/2016 02:41 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 12/15, Georgi Djakov wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpm.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpm.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..7b0e85eefe70
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpm.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,290 @@
>> +
>> +static int clk_rpm_prepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
>> +{
>> +	struct clk_rpm *r = to_clk_rpm(hw);
>> +	unsigned long rate = r->rate;
>> +	int ret = 0;
>> +
>> +	mutex_lock(&rpm_clk_lock);
>> +
>> +	if (!rate)
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>> +	if (r->branch)
>> +		rate = !!rate;
>> +
>> +	ret = clk_rpm_set_rate_active(r, rate);
>> +
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>> +out:
>> +	if (!ret)
>> +		r->enabled = true;
>> +
>> +	mutex_unlock(&rpm_clk_lock);
>> +
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
> 
> I don't see any "peer" code in this file. Is there a reason we're
> leaving out the active only vs active + sleep set style clocks?
> 

I have left this as a separate follow-up patch, but will squash it
in the next version.

Thanks,
Georgi

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web