On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:38 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Jeffrey Hugo (2019-05-21 07:52:28)
> > On 5/21/2019 8:44 AM, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > > The multimedia clock controller (mmcc) is the main clock controller for
> > > the multimedia subsystem and is required to enable things like display and
> > > camera.
> >
> > Stephen, I think this series is good to go, and I have display/gpu stuff
> > I'm polishing that will depend on this. Would you kindly pickup patches
> > 1, 3, 4, and 5 for 5.3? I can work with Bjorn to pick up patches 2 and 6.
> >
>
> If I apply patch 3 won't it break boot until patch 2 is also in the
> tree? That seems to imply that I'll break bisection, and we have
> kernelci boot testing clk-next so this will probably set off alarms
> somewhere.
Yes, it'll break boot. Maybe you and Bjorn can make a deal? (more below)
Doesn't look like kernelci is running tests on 8998 anymore, so maybe
no one will complain? As far as I am aware, Marc, Lee, Bjorn, and I
are the only ones whom care about 8998 presently, and I think we are
all good with a temporary breakage in order to get this basic
functionality in since the platform isn't really well supported yet.
>
> I thought we had some code that got removed that was going to make the
> transition "seamless" in the sense that it would search the tree for an
> RPM clk controller and then not add the XO fixed factor clk somehow.
> See commit 54823af9cd52 ("clk: qcom: Always add factor clock for xo
> clocks") for the code that we removed. So ideally we do something like
> this too, but now we search for a property on the calling node to see if
> the XO clk is there?
>
Trying to remember back a bit.
I don't think its possible. Maybe I'm wrong. I didn't see a solution
to the below:
How does GCC know the following?
-RPMCC is compiled in the build (I guess this can be assumed)
-RPMCC has probed
-RPMCC is not and will not be providing XO
