lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 11/11] clk: scmi: Support atomic clock enable/disable API
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:31:00AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 03:08:37PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Cristian Marussi (2021-12-20 11:56:46)
> > > Support also atomic enable/disable clk_ops beside the bare non-atomic one
> > > (prepare/unprepare) when the underlying SCMI transport is configured to
> > > support atomic transactions for synchronous commands.
> > >

Hi,

> > > Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
> > > Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > > NOTE THAT STILL THERE'S NO FINE GRAIN CONTROL OVER SELECTION
> > > OF WHICH CLOCK DEVICES CAN SUPPORT ATOMIC AND WHICH SHOULD NOT
> > > BASED ON CLOCK DEVICES ENABLE LATENCY.
> > > THIS HAS STILL TO BE ADDED IN SCMI PROTOCOL SPEC.
> >
> > Why are you yelling on the internet? :-) I guess I need to ack this.
> >
>

Sorry I did not mean to yell really, just to warn partners using this.

> It is for the partners who request such changes. We are trying to prototype
> and share the code and ask for feedback before we finalise the specification.
>
> In fact it is other way around for you 😁. Not to ack as it is not yet final
> 😉. At least I need to wait until the spec contents are finalised before I
> can merge with your ack 😁. But I agree RFC would have indicated that along
> with the above background instead of *yelling*. Cristian assumed everyone
> is aware of the content as quite a few are involved in offline discussions.
>
> > Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
>
> Thanks anyways, will use it if nothing changes.
>

As Sudeep said, V8 it is indeed not the final version which is going to
be posted soon after the merge-windows (without yelling :D) and which it
will be indeed still marked as RFC since it does include a new protocol
feature which is still under review and not published.

Sorry for the noise.

Thanks,
Cristian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-17 13:43    [W:0.161 / U:0.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site