PoC: STM32 global clocks manager #1
Conversation
Introduce new SoC-specific framework to manage global peripheral clocks. Update all STM32 code to make use of the framework when accessing one of the global peripherals: PWR/SYSCFG. Signed-off-by: Mathieu Choplain <[email protected]>
allow indicating which clocks are always-on such that the calls to refer/release for thes clocks turn into no-ops which reduces footprint and speeds up runtime Signed-off-by: Mathieu Choplain <[email protected]>
|
|
||
| /* Enable PWR */ | ||
| LL_AHB4_GRP1_EnableClock(LL_AHB4_GRP1_PERIPH_PWR); | ||
| stm32_global_periph_refer(STM32_GLOBAL_PERIPH_PWR); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not fond of this name.
1- Can we find an alternative to refer/release that already exist in tree ? (eg get/put even if I don't think this one is quite clear)
2- Alternative to stm32_global_periph:
- stm32_soc_device
- stm32_device
- ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
refer was inspired by net_buf_ref/net_buf_unref (that's why I have a comment somewhere suggesting to rename stm32_global_periph_release to _unref). In tree, we have net_buf_{ref,unref}, bt_conn_{ref,unref} and z_fd_{ref,unref}, all explicitly described as "inc/dec a refcount" which is what we're doing here, hence why I picked this name. On the other hand, get/put seems to only be used by the PM subsystem (pm_policy_state_lock_put, pm_device_runtime_put, ...) and refers to a lock-with-counter rather than a refcount.
I don't have any strong opinion on the name stm32_global_periph, that's just what I came up with. Fine with changing it.
| stm32_global_periph_refer(STM32_GLOBAL_PERIPH_PWR); | ||
| stm32_global_periph_refer(STM32_GLOBAL_PERIPH_SYSCFG); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about having it as a field (with maybe shorter names, then) ?
| stm32_global_periph_refer(STM32_GLOBAL_PERIPH_PWR); | |
| stm32_global_periph_refer(STM32_GLOBAL_PERIPH_SYSCFG); | |
| stm32_global_periph_refer(STM32_GLOBAL_PERIPH_PWR|STM32_GLOBAL_PERIPH_SYSCFG); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This could definitely be done, I'd just need to change logic a bit. (it would add a tiny additional overhead too)
No description provided.