R: [PATCH v2] ARM: qcom: Disable i2c device on gsbi4 for ipq806x

[ansuelsmth]

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Inviato: venerdà 3 aprile 2020 03:34
> A: Andy Gross <agross@xxxxxxxxxx>; Ansuel Smith
> <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>; Mathieu Olivari
> <mathieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bjorn Andersson
> <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Mark
> Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>; Michael Turquette
> <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Oggetto: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: qcom: Disable i2c device on gsbi4 for
> ipq806x
> 
> Quoting Ansuel Smith (2020-03-30 13:56:46)
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-ipq806x.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-
> ipq806x.c
> > index b0eee0903807..f7d7a2bc84c1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-ipq806x.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-ipq806x.c
> > @@ -991,6 +991,7 @@ static struct clk_branch gsbi4_h_clk = {
> >                 .hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
> >                         .name = "gsbi4_h_clk",
> >                         .ops = &clk_branch_ops,
> > +                       .flags = CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
> 
> Is this necessary? Shouldn't we skip clks that are protected during the
> unused phase?
> 

gsbi4_h_clk is not protected. gsbi4_h_clk needs to not be disabled if unused
(as it's used by rpm) but can't be protected since it's used by uart gsbi4.
(With some test protecting also this clk cause the malfunction of uart gsb4)

> >                 },
> >         },
> >  };
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >