[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20221014193652.0C745C433D6@smtp.kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 12:36:50 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
Cc: mturquette@...libre.com, matthias.bgg@...il.com,
chun-jie.chen@...iatek.com, miles.chen@...iatek.com,
wenst@...omium.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: mediatek: clk-mux: Add .determine_rate() callback
Quoting Maxime Ripard (2022-10-12 06:56:19)
>
> I think we need to address this in multiple ways:
>
> - If you have ftrace enabled on that platform, running with "tp_printk
> trace_event=clk:*" in the kernel command line on a failing kernel would
> be great, so that we can figure out what is happening exactly.
>
> - We really need to merge your patch above as well;
>
> - And, if we can, we should forbid to register a mux without a
> determine_rate implementation. We have to take into account that some
> muxes are going to be RO and won't need a determine_rate
> implementation at all, but a clock with a set_parent and without a
> determine_rate seems like a weird combination.
>
So should I apply this patch now on clk-next? Given this regression I'm
leaning towards not sending off the clk rate request this merge window
and letting it bake another cycle.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists