Hi Maxime, Stephen, Am Freitag, 8. Mai 2015, 12:02:47 schrieb Maxime Ripard: > 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. > > > 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.
did this lead anywhere meanwhile. Last I remember the change to orphan handling made sunxi fail, but I'm still hoping to get this usable at some point :-) Thanks Heiko -- 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/
