[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <153937368201.5275.2313781259297807972@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:48:02 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: "kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier@...aro.org>,
Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] clk: imx: imx7d: remove clks_init_on array
Quoting Anson Huang (2018-10-08 01:34:59)
> > Quoting Anson Huang (2018-09-03 00:20:53)
> > > > > On 08/31/2018 03:29 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > > > Quoting Peng Fan (2018-08-12 18:15:41)
> > > > > >> Hi Anson,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >>>>> From: Anson Huang
> > > > > >>>>> Sent: 2018年8月8日 12:39
> > > > > >>>>> To: shawnguo@...nel.org; s.hauer@...gutronix.de;
> > > > > >>>>> kernel@...gutronix.de; Fabio Estevam
> > > > > >>>>> <fabio.estevam@....com>; mturquette@...libre.com;
> > > > > >>>>> sboyd@...nel.org; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org;
> > > > > >>>>> linux-clk@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > >>>>> Cc: dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
> > > > > >>>>> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] clk: imx: imx7d: remove clks_init_on
> > > > > >>>>> array
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Clock framework will enable those clocks registered with
> > > > > >>>>> CLK_IS_CRITICAL flag, so no need to have clks_init_on array
> > > > > >>>>> during clock
> > > > > >>>> initialization now.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Will it be more flexible to parse dts saying "critical-clocks = <xxx>"
> > > > > >>>> or "init-on-arrary=<xxx>"
> > > > > >>>> and enable those clocks?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Parsing the clocks arrays from dtb is another way of enabling
> > > > > >>> critical clocks, but for current i.MX6/7 platforms, we
> > > > > >>> implement it in same way as most of other SoCs, currently I
> > > > > >>> did NOT see any necessity of putting them in dtb, just adding
> > > > > >>> flag during clock registering is more simple, if there is any
> > > > > >>> special requirement for different clocks set to be enabled,
> > > > > >>> then we can add support to enable
> > > > the method of parsing critical-clocks from dtb. Just my two cents.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thinking about OP-TEE want to use one device, but it's clocks
> > > > > >> are registered by Linux, because there is no module in Linux
> > > > > >> side use it, it will shutdown the clock, which cause OP-TEE
> > > > > >> could not access the
> > > > device.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Then people have to modify clk code to add CLK_IS_CRITICAL flag
> > > > > >> to make sure the clocks are not shutdown by Linux.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> However adding a new property in clk node and let driver code
> > > > > >> parse the dts, there is no need to modify clk driver code when
> > > > > >> OP-TEE needs
> > > > another device clock.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If OP-TEE needs linux to keep things on then why can't the
> > > > > > OP-TEE driver in Linux probe, acquire clocks, and keep the clks enabled
> > forever?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds reasonable, but how could this be done without introducing
> > > > > platform-specific stuff in the OP-TEE driver?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why is that a goal?
> > >
> > > I do NOT think we should consider such case in this patch series,
> > > whatever OP-TEE needs for its own feature, it should do necessary operations
> > either in its driver or somewhere else by adding new patch.
> > >
> >
> > Why can't we add clks to the op-tee node in DT's /firmware container?
> > Then any clks in there can be turned on forever and left enabled by the linux
> > driver?
>
> I did NOT run op-tee with Linux-next kernel before, can you advise more?
Neither have I, so I can't advise more.
> And I think if op-tee has such requirement,
> can we have another patch to cover it?
Yes.
> I believe all other i.MX platforms also have same
> requirements if considering op-tee support, so I think it should be another topic, what do you think?
>
I'm going to drop these patches from my review queue. Please resend them
and please include the op-tee patches too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists