Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] clk: improve handling of orphan clocks

[Stephen Boyd]

On 05/07/15 01:22, Tero Kristo wrote:
> On 05/02/2015 02:40 AM, Stephen Boyd 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@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> 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.
>
> FWIW, just gave a try for these two patches on all TI boards I have
> access to.
>
> Tested-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx>
>
> I didn't try your evolved patch though, as you don't seem to have made
> your mind yet.
>

Thanks. Can you try the evolved patch? It's in linux-next now as commit
882667c1fcf1, and it seems to at least break sunxi boot. I'd be
interested if it broke TI boards.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/