[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <qanawqrk6izypwmmuvezzff37k66ptv2vlbdwxs62dqx7igop4@wzkz76376jli>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 18:09:24 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@...rphone.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
Danila Tikhonov <danila@...xyga.com>,
Taniya Das <taniya.das@....qualcomm.com>,
~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] clk: qcom: camcc-sm6350: Fix PLL config of PLL2
On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 01:19:16PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 10/21/25 8:08 PM, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > The 'Agera' PLLs (with clk_agera_pll_configure) do not take some of the
> > parameters that are provided in the vendor driver. Instead the upstream
> > configuration should provide the final user_ctl value that is written to
> > the USER_CTL register.
>
> This is perhaps wishful thinking due to potential complexity, but maybe
> we could add some sanity checks to make sure that putting things in
> unused fields doesn't happen
Should we just drop those fields and always write the register value?
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists