[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f4072105-e0e2-46c8-82ed-92105b43a345@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:51:48 +0100
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
"Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp)" <quic_skakitap@...cinc.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd
<sboyd@...nel.org>, Abhishek Sahu <absahu@...eaurora.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Ajit Pandey <quic_ajipan@...cinc.com>,
Imran Shaik <quic_imrashai@...cinc.com>, Taniya Das <quic_tdas@...cinc.com>,
Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] clk: qcom: Add camera clock controller driver for
SM8150
On 10/07/2024 23:10, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> - Why is cam_cc_gdsc_clk not modelled in the clock framework?
>>
>> This clock is kept enabled from probe, hence not required to be modelled
>> explicitly.
> Yes, I'm asking why it's kept up enabled from probe rather than via
> clock framework?
FWIW my preference is to do it as Dmitry is suggesting here.
I'm not a big fan of hitting the register and leaving it as-is, would
much prefer to move to the model of having the CCF do it - so that for
example the clock appears in the /sys clock summary.
---
bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists