lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: ACPI support in common clock framework
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 7:43 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
> Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2018-06-13 01:27:39)
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Andy Shevchenko
>> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > +Cc: Rafael, ACPI ML
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Srinath Mannam
>> > <srinath.mannam@broadcom.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi Michael, Stephen,
>> >>
>> >> We are adding ACPI support in our Linux based platform.
>> >> At present our clock hierarchy using common clock framework through DTS.
>> >> Now we required ACPI support in common clock framework to upgrade our platform.
>> >>
>> >> For example, clk_get API called in many drivers to get clock device is
>> >> tightly coupled with DT framework.
>> >>
>> >> Please let us know, if anybody in Open Source community have plans to
>> >> add ACPI support for common clock framework.
>>
>> There are no plans for doing that AFAICS.
>>
>> Moreover, it generally would not be consistent with ACPI power
>> management defined by the specification.
>
> This matches my understanding.
>
>>
>> >> If not please suggest us alternative method to use common clock
>> >> framework in ACPI use case.
>>
>> The problem with using the clock framework on systems with ACPI is
>> that, in general, the clock manipulation is expected to be carried out
>> by ACPI power management and therefore it is "owned" by AML.
>> Currently, there are no defined methods for synchronizing the AML's
>> use of clocks for power management with what the OS may do with them
>> directly.
>>
>> In theory, that can be worked around to some extent by representing
>> clocks as power resources in ASL (even though the provider information
>> would be missing then) and manipulating those power resources directly
>> from the OS. I'm not aware of anyone doing that successfully,
>> however.
>>
>> For simple power management it should be sufficient to let drivers
>> rely on the ACPI PM domain which should happen automatically in the
>> majority of cases anyway.
>>
>
> Is this for clk_enable/disable? What about clk_set_rate() or
> clk_set_phase()? Is ACPI's AML taking care of that?

That's for clk_enable/disable AFAICS.

AML doesn't manage device performance states at all.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-16 17:51    [W:0.096 / U:33.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site