From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: heiko@sntech.de (Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?=) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:06:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add critical clock for rk3368 In-Reply-To: <20150914141920.GF7002@leverpostej> References: <5267432.TORlj1Iv40@diego> <20150914141920.GF7002@leverpostej> Message-ID: <6675833.8DAAvDYooL@diego> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Am Montag, 14. September 2015, 15:19:21 schrieb Mark Rutland: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 12:20:36PM +0100, Heiko St?bner wrote: > > Again a result of the gpio-clock-liberation the rk3368 needs the > > pclk_pd_pmu marked as critical, to boot successfully. > > > > Reported-by: Mark Rutland > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner > > FWIW: Tested-by: Mark Rutland > > I'm surprised that we don't describe these as critical in the DT, given > that this isn't really an internal property of the clock controller, but > rather what happens to be attached to it. That ship appears to have > sailed, however. I wouldn't necessarily think so ... what is called critical only means "don't turn off when walking the clock-tree upwards". The pclk_pd_pmu for example simply supplies some more clocks we don't handle at all currently (pclk_pmu_noc, ...). That we currently choose to ignore those [because we don't have any code nor dt-bindings to handle the components supplied] sounds very much like an implementation-specific detail, not something about the hardware. I really like the concept of critical clock handling Mike is working on, which implements some sort of hand-off and keeps so marked clocks on until a real components picks them up. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= To: Mark Rutland Cc: "mturquette@baylibre.com" , "sboyd@codeaurora.org" , "linux-clk@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add critical clock for rk3368 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:06:05 +0200 Message-ID: <6675833.8DAAvDYooL@diego> In-Reply-To: <20150914141920.GF7002@leverpostej> References: <5267432.TORlj1Iv40@diego> <20150914141920.GF7002@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-ID: Am Montag, 14. September 2015, 15:19:21 schrieb Mark Rutland: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 12:20:36PM +0100, Heiko St=FCbner wrote: > > Again a result of the gpio-clock-liberation the rk3368 needs the > > pclk_pd_pmu marked as critical, to boot successfully. > >=20 > > Reported-by: Mark Rutland > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner >=20 > FWIW: Tested-by: Mark Rutland >=20 > I'm surprised that we don't describe these as critical in the DT, giv= en > that this isn't really an internal property of the clock controller, = but > rather what happens to be attached to it. That ship appears to have > sailed, however. I wouldn't necessarily think so ... what is called critical only means = "don't=20 turn off when walking the clock-tree upwards". The pclk_pd_pmu for example simply supplies some more clocks we don't h= andle=20 at all currently (pclk_pmu_noc, ...). That we currently choose to ignor= e those=20 [because we don't have any code nor dt-bindings to handle the component= s=20 supplied] sounds very much like an implementation-specific detail, not=20= something about the hardware. I really like the concept of critical clock handling Mike is working on= , which=20 implements some sort of hand-off and keeps so marked clocks on until a = real=20 components picks them up. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add critical clock for rk3368 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:06:05 +0200 Message-ID: <6675833.8DAAvDYooL@diego> References: <5267432.TORlj1Iv40@diego> <20150914141920.GF7002@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150914141920.GF7002@leverpostej> Sender: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: "mturquette@baylibre.com" , "sboyd@codeaurora.org" , "linux-clk@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-rockchip.vger.kernel.org Am Montag, 14. September 2015, 15:19:21 schrieb Mark Rutland: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 12:20:36PM +0100, Heiko St=FCbner wrote: > > Again a result of the gpio-clock-liberation the rk3368 needs the > > pclk_pd_pmu marked as critical, to boot successfully. > >=20 > > Reported-by: Mark Rutland > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner >=20 > FWIW: Tested-by: Mark Rutland >=20 > I'm surprised that we don't describe these as critical in the DT, giv= en > that this isn't really an internal property of the clock controller, = but > rather what happens to be attached to it. That ship appears to have > sailed, however. I wouldn't necessarily think so ... what is called critical only means = "don't=20 turn off when walking the clock-tree upwards". The pclk_pd_pmu for example simply supplies some more clocks we don't h= andle=20 at all currently (pclk_pmu_noc, ...). That we currently choose to ignor= e those=20 [because we don't have any code nor dt-bindings to handle the component= s=20 supplied] sounds very much like an implementation-specific detail, not=20 something about the hardware. I really like the concept of critical clock handling Mike is working on= , which=20 implements some sort of hand-off and keeps so marked clocks on until a = real=20 components picks them up.