> On 12.05.2016, at 17:55, Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > >> Martin Sperl <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> hat am 12. Mai 2016 um 17:28 >> geschrieben: >> >> >> >>> On 12.05.2016, at 16:50, Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Martin, >>> >>>> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx hat am 12. Mai 2016 um 14:38 geschrieben: >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Martin Sperl <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> As the sdram clock is a critical clock to the system >>>> the minimal bcm2835-sdram driver claims (and enables) >>>> this clock and also exposes the corresponding sdram >>>> registers via debugfs. >>> >>> sounds like this driver should fix an clock handling issue. Unfortunately >>> this >>> isn't a solution in case the driver is disabled. >> Unfortunately there is no way around this - the driver has >> to be enabled so that the sdram clock or the parent pll, >> which typically is plld_core, never gets disabled. >> >> The only other option would be marking the clock as critical >> for those legacy drivers. > > i would prefer this option. Since this would be more a fix we could get this > faster in, it's more clear why we are doing that and less to review. > > Did i miss a drawback? We had long discussions already on that - and HAND_OFF did not make it into the kernel either. I had hoped that this was simple enough. Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
