Quoting ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx (2020-04-02 18:39:04)
>
>
> > -----Messaggio originale-----
> > Da: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Inviato: venerdì 3 aprile 2020 03:34
> > A: Andy Gross <agross@xxxxxxxxxx>; Ansuel Smith
> > <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>; Mathieu Olivari
> > <mathieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bjorn Andersson
> > <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Mark
> > Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>; Michael Turquette
> > <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Oggetto: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: qcom: Disable i2c device on gsbi4 for
> > ipq806x
> >
> > Quoting Ansuel Smith (2020-03-30 13:56:46)
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-ipq806x.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-
> > ipq806x.c
> > > index b0eee0903807..f7d7a2bc84c1 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-ipq806x.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-ipq806x.c
> > > @@ -991,6 +991,7 @@ static struct clk_branch gsbi4_h_clk = {
> > > .hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
> > > .name = "gsbi4_h_clk",
> > > .ops = &clk_branch_ops,
> > > + .flags = CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
> >
> > Is this necessary? Shouldn't we skip clks that are protected during the
> > unused phase?
> >
>
> gsbi4_h_clk is not protected. gsbi4_h_clk needs to not be disabled if unused
> (as it's used by rpm) but can't be protected since it's used by uart gsbi4.
> (With some test protecting also this clk cause the malfunction of uart gsb4)
>
Who owns gsbi4 on this platform? Is it RPM? If so, it should be
protected and we shouldn't touch this clk from the kernel.
