[PATCH 0/2] clk: Implement a clock request API

[Maxime Ripard]

Hi Stephen, Mike,

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 02:48:11PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Stephen, Mike,
> 
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 10:32:21AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 01:59:39PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Maxime Ripard (2021-04-13 03:13:18)
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > This is a follow-up of the discussion here:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20210319150355.xzw7ikwdaga2dwhv@gilmour/
> > > > 
> > > > This implements a mechanism to raise and lower clock rates based on consumer
> > > > workloads, with an example of such an implementation for the RaspberryPi4 HDMI
> > > > controller.
> > > > 
> > > > There's a couple of things worth discussing:
> > > > 
> > > >   - The name is in conflict with clk_request_rate, and even though it feels
> > > >     like the right name to me, we should probably avoid any confusion
> > > > 
> > > >   - The code so far implements a policy of always going for the lowest rate
> > > >     possible. While we don't have an use-case for something else, this should
> > > >     maybe be made more flexible?
> > > 
> > > I'm definitely confused how it is different from the
> > > clk_set_rate_exclusive() API and associated
> > > clk_rate_exclusive_get()/clk_rate_exclusive_put(). Can you explain
> > > further the differences in the cover letter here?
> > 
> > The exclusive API is meant to prevent the clock rate from changing,
> > allowing a single user to make sure that no other user will be able to
> > change it.
> > 
> > What we want here is instead to allow multiple users to be able to
> > express a set of minimum rates and then let the CCF figure out a rate
> > for that clock that matches those constraints (so basically what
> > clk_set_min_rate does), but then does allow for the clock to go back to
> > its initial rate once that constraint is not needed anymore.
> > 
> > So I guess it's more akin to clk_set_min_rate with rollback than the
> > exclusive API?
> 
> Is that rationale good enough, or did you expect something else?

I'm not really sure what to do at this point. It's been over 2 months
since I sent this series, and we really need that mechanism in some form
or another.

I'm really fine with changing that series in any way, but I got no
comment that I could address to turn this into something that would be
acceptable to you. How can we move this forward?

Maxime