Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] clk: qcom: Add lpass clock controller driver for SDM845

[Taniya Das]

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.

--