On 05/08/15 03:02, Maxime Ripard wrote: > 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 <sb...@codeaurora.org> 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 <he...@sntech.de> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <he...@sntech.de> >>>> 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[1] 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. >
Hmm.. I thought it didn't fix it for Kevin. Confused. >> 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. > > http://code.bulix.org/5goa5j-88345?raw > > 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. > I wonder why we can't switch out the clk_ops on the affected platforms + clocks to be read-only (at least for the enable/disable part)? That would fix it just the same right? I wasn't around for the original discussion regarding this always-on stuff so perhaps I've missed something. -- 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
