[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090129103506.GC12627@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:35:06 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH C 08/13] OMAP3 clock: put DPLL into bypass if bypass rate = clk->rate, not hardware rate
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:08:32PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> When a non-CORE DPLL is enabled via omap3_noncore_dpll_enable(), use
> the user's desired rate in clk->rate to determine whether to put the
> DPLL into bypass or lock mode, rather than reading the DPLL's current
> idle state from its hardware registers.
>
> This fixes a bug observed when leaving retention. Non-CORE DPLLs were
> not being relocked when downstream clocks re-enabled; rather, the DPLL
> entered bypass mode.
>
> Problem reported by Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@...ia.com>.
>
> linux-omap source commit is 8b1f0bd44fe490ec631230c8c040753a2bda8caa.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
> Cc: Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@...ia.com>
Patch 6 did it this way. Patch 7 changed it to use omap2_get_dpll_rate()
and this patch changes it back. What's the point of submitting all this
detail? It's just pure noise. Collapse these three patches into one
please.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists