[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e86e9efe-b377-4cbc-8603-f308ea65d2b9@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 12:27:24 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: qcom: gcc-msm8996: Use read-only RCG ops for RPM
bus clocks
On 31.07.2023 13:01, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 13.06.2023 19:54, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13.06.2023 19:56, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:22:48AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> The config/periph/system NoC clocks are wholly controlled by the
>>>> RPM firmware and Linux should never ever alter their configuration.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does Linux need to know about them?
>> Not really, but it allows us to get rates of their children.
>>
>> We can get rid of them if one can argue debugcc is enough. Unless
>> we need clk_get_rate for some reason.
>>
> Any opinions?
So, do we drop them?
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists