Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] clk: qcom: Add lpass clock controller driver for SDM845 | From | Taniya Das <> | Date | Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:31:27 +0530 |
| |
On 9/29/2018 12:21 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Taniya Das (2018-09-18 03:25:38) >> @@ -3469,6 +3495,8 @@ enum { >> [GCC_QSPI_CORE_CLK_SRC] = &gcc_qspi_core_clk_src.clkr, >> [GCC_QSPI_CORE_CLK] = &gcc_qspi_core_clk.clkr, >> [GCC_QSPI_CNOC_PERIPH_AHB_CLK] = &gcc_qspi_cnoc_periph_ahb_clk.clkr, >> + [GCC_LPASS_Q6_AXI_CLK] = NULL, >> + [GCC_LPASS_SWAY_CLK] = NULL, >> }; >> >> static const struct qcom_reset_map gcc_sdm845_resets[] = { >> @@ -3583,6 +3611,13 @@ static int gcc_sdm845_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> >> + if (of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, "qcom,lpass-protected")) { > > Shouldn't this be negated? So that we only add the clks when lpass isn't > protected? >
I was of the opinion to add the flag only when LPASS clocks are required. But I am fine negating it too.
>> + gcc_sdm845_clocks[GCC_LPASS_Q6_AXI_CLK] = >> + &gcc_lpass_q6_axi_clk.clkr; >> + gcc_sdm845_clocks[GCC_LPASS_SWAY_CLK] = >> + &gcc_lpass_sway_clk.clkr; >> + } >> + >> return qcom_cc_really_probe(pdev, &gcc_sdm845_desc, regmap);
-- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.
--
| |