lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/2] clk: improve handling of orphan clocks
    On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:44:50PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
    > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Maxime Ripard
    > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
    > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 07:33:54AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
    > >> Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> writes:
    > >>
    > >> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:35:50PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
    > >> >> On 05/08/15 03:02, Maxime Ripard wrote:
    > >> >> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 02:03:57PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
    > >> >> >> On 05/07/15 08:17, Kevin Hilman wrote:
    > >> >> >>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
    > >> >> >>>> On 05/01/15 15:07, Heiko Stübner wrote:
    > >> >> >>>>> Am Freitag, 1. Mai 2015, 13:52:47 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
    > >> >> >>>>>
    > >> >> >>>>>>> Instead I guess we could hook it less deep into clk_get_sys, like in the
    > >> >> >>>>>>> following patch?
    > >> >> >>>>>> It looks like it will work at least, but still I'd prefer to keep the
    > >> >> >>>>>> orphan check contained to clk.c. How about this compile tested only patch?
    > >> >> >>>>> I gave this a spin on my rk3288-firefly board. It still boots, the clock tree
    > >> >> >>>>> looks the same and it also still defers nicely in the scenario I needed it
    > >> >> >>>>> for. The implementation also looks nice - and of course much more compact than
    > >> >> >>>>> my check in two places :-) . I don't know if you want to put this as follow-up
    > >> >> >>>>> on top or fold it into the original orphan-check, so in any case
    > >> >> >>>>>
    > >> >> >>>>> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
    > >> >> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
    > >> >> >>>> Thanks. I'm leaning towards tossing your patch 2/2 and replacing it with
    > >> >> >>>> my patch and a note that it's based on an earlier patch from you.
    > >> >> >>> It appears this has landed in linux-next in the form of 882667c1fcf1
    > >> >> >>> clk: prevent orphan clocks from being used. A bunch of boot failures
    > >> >> >>> for sunxi in today's linux-next[1] were bisected down to that patch.
    > >> >> >>>
    > >> >> >>> I confirmed that reverting that commit on top of next/master gets
    > >> >> >>> sunxi booting again.
    > >> >> >>>
    > >> >> >>>
    > >> >> >> Thanks for the report. I've removed the two clk orphan patches from
    > >> >> >> clk-next. Would it be possible to try with next-20150507 and
    > >> >> >> clk_ignore_unused on the command line?
    > >> >> > This makes it work, but it's not really an option.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Hmm.. I thought it didn't fix it for Kevin. Confused.
    > >> >
    > >> > I'm too, but it does fix things here.
    > >>
    > >> To be more precise on what I tested. I used next-20150507 and tested on
    > >> 4 different sunxi platforms. First test was "normal" commandline,
    > >> second was with clk_ignore_unused appended:
    > >>
    > >> - cubie: fail, fail
    > >> - cubie2: fail, fail
    > >> - bananpi: fail, pass
    > >> - cubietruck: fail, pass
    > >>
    > >> So it seems to have some effect, but by itself, doesn't fix the issue.
    > >
    > > It's very odd, I actually tried with a cubie2 here...
    > >
    > > I'm booting on an initramfs and not MMC though, but I can't see how
    > > that can be related to our issue...
    >
    > I'm booting an initramfs too.

    Then I don't know :)

    --
    Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
    Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
    http://free-electrons.com
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-05-13 23:01    [W:4.148 / U:0.516 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site