[PATCH v5 3/4] clk: introduce the common clock framework

Sascha Hauer s.hauer at pengutronix.de
Mon Mar 19 11:22:52 UTC 2012


On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 03:01:17PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:25:00AM -0800, Turquette, Mike wrote:
> ...
> > However if you have the ability to use the clk_foo_register functions
> > please do use them in place of static initialization.  The static init
> > stuff is only for folks backed into a corner and forced to use it...
> > for now.  I'm looking at ways to allow for kmalloc'ing in early boot,
> > as well as reducing the number of clocks that my platform registers
> > during early boot drastically.
> > 
> While I agree using registration functions rather than static
> initialization will help make "struct clk" an opaque cookie, I also
> see some benefit with using static initialization over registration
> functions.  That is we will be able to initialize parents statically
> rather than calling expensive __clk_lookup() to find them when using
> registration functions.
> 
> I'm not sure if this will be a concern with the platforms that have
> hundreds of clocks.  Keep it in mind, when we say one clock, there
> are generally 3 clks behind it, clk_gate, clk_divider and clk_mux.

On an i.MX51 with a fully dynamically allocated clock tree it takes
about 10ms to initialize the tree which I think is acceptable. The
clock tree is not complete, but I would think that about 70% of the
clocks are there.
Normally less performant platforms will have less clocks, so I assume
the times will be comparable.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |



More information about the linaro-dev mailing list