On 9/29/2018 12:21 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Taniya Das (2018-09-18 03:25:38)
@@ -3469,6 +3495,8 @@ enum {
[GCC_QSPI_CORE_CLK_SRC] = &gcc_qspi_core_clk_src.clkr,
[GCC_QSPI_CORE_CLK] = &gcc_qspi_core_clk.clkr,
[GCC_QSPI_CNOC_PERIPH_AHB_CLK] = &gcc_qspi_cnoc_periph_ahb_clk.clkr,
+ [GCC_LPASS_Q6_AXI_CLK] = NULL,
+ [GCC_LPASS_SWAY_CLK] = NULL,
};
static const struct qcom_reset_map gcc_sdm845_resets[] = {
@@ -3583,6 +3611,13 @@ static int gcc_sdm845_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (ret)
return ret;
+ if (of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, "qcom,lpass-protected")) {
Shouldn't this be negated? So that we only add the clks when lpass isn't
protected?
I was of the opinion to add the flag only when LPASS clocks are
required. But I am fine negating it too.
+ gcc_sdm845_clocks[GCC_LPASS_Q6_AXI_CLK] =
+ &gcc_lpass_q6_axi_clk.clkr;
+ gcc_sdm845_clocks[GCC_LPASS_SWAY_CLK] =
+ &gcc_lpass_sway_clk.clkr;
+ }
+
return qcom_cc_really_probe(pdev, &gcc_sdm845_desc, regmap);
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.
--
