[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1ce59ea1c33c4983a9c3c82be078d8be.sboyd@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:17:55 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <quic_kathirav@...cinc.com>,
agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mturquette@...libre.com
Cc: Kathiravan T <quic_kathirav@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: ipq5332: mark GPLL4 as critical temporarily
Quoting Kathiravan Thirumoorthy (2023-01-30 04:09:59)
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-ipq5332.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-ipq5332.c
> index a8ce618bb81b..6159d0e1e43f 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-ipq5332.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-ipq5332.c
> @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ static struct clk_alpha_pll gpll4_main = {
> .parent_data = &gcc_parent_data_xo,
> .num_parents = 1,
> .ops = &clk_alpha_pll_stromer_ops,
> + .flags = CLK_IS_CRITICAL,
Please add a comment above this line that indicates why this is
critical. What clk needs to be added that will actually use this? If
nothing is ever going to use the PLL then maybe we should simply not
register this PLL with the clk framework?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists