On 2017-04-04 19:15, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> IMX7D_IPG_ROOT_CLK is currently not a valid clock in upstream... So we
>>> would have to add it to the clock driver first.
>>>
>>> I guess we could/should add it anyway at one point? But probably also as
>>> init on, just to make sure Linux does not disable it since it is
>>> currently used by several IPs implicitly.
>>
>> Yes, I made a previous attempt do add IMX7D_IPG_ROOT_CLK and it did
>> not work as I did not put it in the init_on clock list.
>>
>> Will submit a new patch adding it to init_on, thanks.
>
> I thought that adding IMX7D_IPG_ROOT_CLK would do the trick, but the
> patch below also causes the kernel to not boot:
>
> --- a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx7d.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx7d.c
> @@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ static int const clks_init_on[] __initconst = {
> IMX7D_PLL_SYS_MAIN_480M_CLK, IMX7D_NAND_USDHC_BUS_ROOT_CLK,
> IMX7D_DRAM_PHYM_ROOT_CLK, IMX7D_DRAM_ROOT_CLK,
> IMX7D_DRAM_PHYM_ALT_ROOT_CLK, IMX7D_DRAM_ALT_ROOT_CLK,
> - IMX7D_AHB_CHANNEL_ROOT_CLK,
> + IMX7D_AHB_CHANNEL_ROOT_CLK, IMX7D_IPG_ROOT_CLK,
> };
>
> static struct clk_onecell_data clk_data;
> @@ -788,7 +788,7 @@ static void __init imx7d_clocks_init(struct
> device_node *ccm_node)
> clks[IMX7D_WRCLK_ROOT_DIV] =
> imx_clk_divider2("wrclk_post_div", "wrclk_pre_div", base + 0xbd00, 0,
> 6);
> clks[IMX7D_CLKO1_ROOT_DIV] =
> imx_clk_divider2("clko1_post_div", "clko1_pre_div", base + 0xbd80, 0,
> 6);
> clks[IMX7D_CLKO2_ROOT_DIV] =
> imx_clk_divider2("clko2_post_div", "clko2_pre_div", base + 0xbe00, 0,
> 6);
> -
> + clks[IMX7D_IPG_ROOT_CLK] = imx_clk_divider2("ipg_root_clk",
> "ahb_root_clk", base + 0x9080, 0, 2);
> clks[IMX7D_ARM_A7_ROOT_CLK] = imx_clk_gate4("arm_a7_root_clk",
> "arm_a7_div", base + 0x4000, 0);
> clks[IMX7D_ARM_M4_ROOT_CLK] = imx_clk_gate4("arm_m4_root_clk",
> "arm_m4_div", base + 0x4010, 0);
> clks[IMX7D_ARM_M0_ROOT_CLK] = imx_clk_gate4("arm_m0_root_clk",
> "arm_m0_div", base + 0x4020, 0);
Hm, imx_clk_divider2 sets CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, maybe that influences the
parent?
I guess we actually don't want the clock framework to change that clock
rate, not sure whether we can freeze it or similar.
--
Stefan
--
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
