[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150107222209.64ed24a0@xhacker>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 22:22:09 +0800
From: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
CC: "mturquette@...aro.org" <mturquette@...aro.org>,
"sboyd@...eaurora.org" <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
"alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com"
<alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
"antoine.tenart@...e-electrons.com"
<antoine.tenart@...e-electrons.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"pawel.moll@....com" <pawel.moll@....com>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
"galak@...eaurora.org" <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] clk: berlin: bg2q: remove non-exist "smemc" gate
clock
Dear Sebastian,
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 06:11:58 -0800
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com> wrote:
> On 31.12.2014 09:57, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > The "smemc" clock is removed on BG2Q SoCs. In fact, bit19 of clkenable
> > register is for nfc. Current code use bit19 for non-exist "smemc"
> > incorrectly, this prevents eMMC from working due to the sdhci's
> > "core" clk is still gated.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 3.16+
> > ---
> > drivers/clk/berlin/bg2q.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/berlin/bg2q.c b/drivers/clk/berlin/bg2q.c
> > index 21784e4..440ef81 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/berlin/bg2q.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/berlin/bg2q.c
> > @@ -285,7 +285,6 @@ static const struct berlin2_gate_data bg2q_gates[]
> > __initconst = { { "pbridge", "perif", 15,
> > CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED }, { "sdio", "perif", 16,
> > CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED }, { "nfc", "perif", 18 },
The nfc here is really confusing, we call it as nfccore internally. Is it better
to rename it as nfccore?
> > - { "smemc", "perif", 19 },
>
> Jisheng,
>
> if bit 19 is for nfc, how does that work out with bit 18 which is
> still assigned to nfc? Can you re-evaluate clkenable registers for
bit 19 is for nfcEcc, the "io" clock; bit 18 is for nfcCore, the "core" clock.
> BG2Q and fix it up accordingly? I'd suggest to still disable as many
I'll recheck the clk driver for BG2Q.
Thanks very much,
Jisheng
--
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