[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ad949d3-1776-4345-9fdc-99b3dba10bd7@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 14:32:06 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>, rfoss@...nel.org,
todor.too@...il.com, agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
mchehab@...nel.org, hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl,
laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
andrey.konovalov@...aro.org
Cc: linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] media: qcom: camss: Add support for setting
CSIPHY clock name csiphyX
On 17.08.2023 16:38, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> Several of our upstream and soon-to-be upstream SoC CAMSS dtsi declare
> csiphyX as opposed to the older clock name csiX_phy.
>
> For newer SoCs csiphyX turns out to be a clock you really need to set.
>
> On sc8280xp for example we will encounter difficult to track down and
> root-cause RX CRC errors without setting the csiX_phy clock. On sdm845 and
> sm8250 we declare the csiXphy clock but seem to get away with not setting
> it.
>
> The right approach here is to set the clock when it is declared. If a SoC
> doesn't require or a SoC driver implementer doesn't think we need, then the
> clock ought to simply be omitted from the clock list.
>
> Include csiphyX in the set of permissible strings which will subsequently
> lead to the csiphyX clock being set during csiphy_set_clock_rates() phase.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
> ---
So.. is this just a namechange? Is it really necessary?
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists