[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJUYksWf-p3KMYZ_oxKWELit6MwAWd7i__6sQY0-_nKOyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:32:57 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
arm-soc <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] ARM: da850: fix infinite loop in clk_set_rate()
2016-12-05 11:15 GMT+01:00 Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>:
> On Monday 05 December 2016 03:39 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> The aemif clock is added twice to the lookup table in da850.c. This
>> breaks the children list of pll0_sysclk3 as we're using the same list
>> links in struct clk. When calling clk_set_rate(), we get stuck in
>> propagate_rate().
>>
>> Create a separate clock for nand, inheriting the rate of the aemif
>> clock and retrieve it in the davinci_nand module.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-davinci/da850.c | 7 ++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/da850.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/da850.c
>> index e770c97..c008e5e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/da850.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/da850.c
>> @@ -367,6 +367,11 @@ static struct clk aemif_clk = {
>> .flags = ALWAYS_ENABLED,
>> };
>>
>> +static struct clk aemif_nand_clk = {
>> + .name = "nand",
>> + .parent = &aemif_clk,
>> +};
>> +
>> static struct clk usb11_clk = {
>> .name = "usb11",
>> .parent = &pll0_sysclk4,
>> @@ -537,7 +542,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup da850_clks[] = {
>> CLK("da830-mmc.0", NULL, &mmcsd0_clk),
>> CLK("da830-mmc.1", NULL, &mmcsd1_clk),
>> CLK("ti-aemif", NULL, &aemif_clk),
>> - CLK(NULL, "aemif", &aemif_clk),
>> + CLK(NULL, "aemif", &aemif_nand_clk),
>
> Why use a NULL device name here? Same question was asked on v2
Eek, sorry, I missed that.
> submission. Also, can you please make sure you are testing this in both
> DT mode (da850-lcdk) and non-DT boot (da850-evm).
Will do.
Thanks,
Bartosz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists