Re: [PATCH v6 00/22] Restructure RPM SMD ICC

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Konrad Dybcio (2023-06-15 00:52:07)
> On 15.06.2023 02:49, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Konrad Dybcio (2023-06-14 11:04:19)
> >> This series reshuffles things around, moving the management of SMD RPM
> >> bus clocks to the interconnect framework where they belong. This helps
> >> us solve a couple of issues:
> >>
> >> 1. We can work towards unused clk cleanup of RPMCC without worrying
> >>    about it killing some NoC bus, resulting in the SoC dying.
> >>    Deasserting actually unused RPM clocks (among other things) will
> >>    let us achieve "true SoC-wide power collapse states", also known as
> >>    VDD_LOW and VDD_MIN.
> >>
> >> 2. We no longer have to keep tons of quirky bus clock ifs in the icc
> >>    driver. You either have a RPM clock and call "rpm set rate" or you
> >>    have a single non-RPM clock (like AHB_CLK_SRC) or you don't have any.
> >>
> >> 3. There's less overhead - instead of going through layers and layers of
> >>    the CCF, ratesetting comes down to calling max() and sending a single
> >>    RPM message. ICC is very very dynamic so that's a big plus.
> >>
> >> The clocks still need to be vaguely described in the clk-smd-rpm driver,
> >> as it gives them an initial kickoff, before actually telling RPM to
> >> enable DVFS scaling.  After RPM receives that command, all clocks that
> >> have not been assigned a rate are considered unused and are shut down
> >> in hardware, leading to the same issue as described in point 1.
> > 
> > Why can't we move the enable of DVFS scaling call to the interconnect
> > driver as well? We want the clk driver to not reference the interconnect
> > resources at all.
> That would result in no rpmcc ratesetting on platforms without a functional
> interconnect driver. The DVFS call concerns both bus and !bus clocks.
> 

That's the intent. Probe the interconnect driver to get bus clk rate
setting.

What are the !bus clocks managed by RPM?