[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <554BAC8A.1010307@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 11:18:50 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
CC: mturquette@...aro.org, dianders@...omium.org,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>,
Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
Chao Xie <chao.xie@...vell.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>,
Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@...aro.org>,
Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nsource.altera.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.linux@...il.com>,
Gabriel FERNANDEZ <gabriel.fernandez@...com>,
emilio@...pez.com.ar,
Peter De Sc hrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] clk: improve handling of orphan clocks
On 05/07/15 01:22, Tero Kristo wrote:
> On 05/02/2015 02:40 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 05/01/15 15:07, Heiko Stübner wrote:
>>> Am Freitag, 1. Mai 2015, 13:52:47 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
>>>
>>>>> Instead I guess we could hook it less deep into clk_get_sys, like
>>>>> in the
>>>>> following patch?
>>>> It looks like it will work at least, but still I'd prefer to keep the
>>>> orphan check contained to clk.c. How about this compile tested only
>>>> patch?
>>> I gave this a spin on my rk3288-firefly board. It still boots, the
>>> clock tree
>>> looks the same and it also still defers nicely in the scenario I
>>> needed it
>>> for. The implementation also looks nice - and of course much more
>>> compact than
>>> my check in two places :-) . I don't know if you want to put this as
>>> follow-up
>>> on top or fold it into the original orphan-check, so in any case
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
>>> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
>>
>> Thanks. I'm leaning towards tossing your patch 2/2 and replacing it with
>> my patch and a note that it's based on an earlier patch from you.
>
> FWIW, just gave a try for these two patches on all TI boards I have
> access to.
>
> Tested-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>
>
> I didn't try your evolved patch though, as you don't seem to have made
> your mind yet.
>
Thanks. Can you try the evolved patch? It's in linux-next now as commit
882667c1fcf1, and it seems to at least break sunxi boot. I'd be
interested if it broke TI boards.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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