[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201204101914.GO8403@vkoul-mobl>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:49:14 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To: Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Vivek Aknurwar <viveka@...eaurora.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeevan Shriram <jshriram@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] clk: qcom: gcc: Add clock driver for SM8350
Hi Taniya,
On 04-12-20, 14:20, Taniya Das wrote:
> On 12/4/2020 10:05 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 03-12-20, 18:06, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > On Thu 03 Dec 01:02 CST 2020, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8350.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8350.c
> > > [..]
> > > > +static int gcc_sm8350_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct regmap *regmap;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + regmap = qcom_cc_map(pdev, &gcc_sm8350_desc);
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(regmap)) {
> > > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to map gcc registers\n");
> > > > + return PTR_ERR(regmap);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = qcom_cc_register_rcg_dfs(regmap, gcc_dfs_clocks, ARRAY_SIZE(gcc_dfs_clocks));
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* FORCE_MEM_CORE_ON for ufs phy ice core clocks */
> > > > + regmap_update_bits(regmap, gcc_ufs_phy_ice_core_clk.halt_reg, BIT(14), BIT(14));
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Enable clocks required by the i2c-connected pm8008 regulators. Don't
> > > > + * register them with the clock framework so that client requests are
> > > > + * short-circuited before grabbing the enable/prepare locks. This
> > > > + * prevents deadlocks between the clk/regulator frameworks.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * gcc_qupv3_wrap_1_m_ahb_clk
> > > > + * gcc_qupv3_wrap_1_s_ahb_clk
> > > > + * gcc_qupv3_wrap1_s5_clk
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > Isn't this a workaround inherited from the downstream control of
> > > regulators from within the clock core? Does this still apply upstream?
> >
> > Let me check on this bit...
> >
> > Thanks
> >
>
> No it should not apply.
Thanks for confirmation, removed now. Will send v2
--
~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists