lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC v1 02/11] clk: qcom: rcg2: Add support for flags
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 18:07, Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rcg.h b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rcg.h
> > index 99efcc7f8d88..a1f05281d950 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rcg.h
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rcg.h
> > @@ -149,6 +149,10 @@ struct clk_rcg2 {
> > const struct freq_tbl *freq_tbl;
> > struct clk_regmap clkr;
> > u8 cfg_off;
> > + u8 flags;
> > +#define FORCE_ENABLE_RCG BIT(0)
> > +#define HW_CLK_CTRL_MODE BIT(1)
>
> Downstream also has these flags for 8250, but the upstream driver ended
> up not using them for the dispcc clocks. Could you please check that you
> realy need HW_CLK_CTRL for dispcc clocks?

HW_CLK_CTRL being flagged in dispcc causes the CFG_HW_CLK_CTRL flag to
be set in the RCG_CFG registers of dispcc.

This flag simply marks the clock as having hardware control enabled or disabled.

As for the question if it is really needed, I can't answer that since
no documentation or downstream comments explain the exact behaviour.
As far as I know the only way to figure out if it is required is
disabling the flag and checking for bugs. I did find this[1] patch,
which enabled HW_CLK_CTRL_MODE.

Should I err on the side of the downstream implementation, or try to
create a minimum functional driver based on the downstream driver?

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/1514877987-8082-2-git-send-email-anischal@codeaurora.org/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-17 15:38    [W:19.791 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site