Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] clk: improve handling of orphan clocks
From: Maxime Ripard
Date: Fri May 08 2015 - 06:05:12 EST
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
> > 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 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.
> Also we can try to see if critical clocks aren't being forced on by
> applying this patch and looking for clk_get() failures
And that shows that the CPU and DDR clocks are not protected, which
obviously is pretty mad.
I've mass converted all our probing code to use OF_CLK_DECLARE, and
make things work again.
Is this an acceptable solution?
We were already moving to this, I'm not really fond of doing this like
that, but I guess this whole debacle makes it necessary.
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
Description: Digital signature