Hi Bjorn,
On 03-12-20, 18:06, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 03 Dec 01:02 CST 2020, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8350.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8350.c
> [..]
> > +static int gcc_sm8350_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct regmap *regmap;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + regmap = qcom_cc_map(pdev, &gcc_sm8350_desc);
> > + if (IS_ERR(regmap)) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to map gcc registers\n");
> > + return PTR_ERR(regmap);
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = qcom_cc_register_rcg_dfs(regmap, gcc_dfs_clocks, ARRAY_SIZE(gcc_dfs_clocks));
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + /* FORCE_MEM_CORE_ON for ufs phy ice core clocks */
> > + regmap_update_bits(regmap, gcc_ufs_phy_ice_core_clk.halt_reg, BIT(14), BIT(14));
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Enable clocks required by the i2c-connected pm8008 regulators. Don't
> > + * register them with the clock framework so that client requests are
> > + * short-circuited before grabbing the enable/prepare locks. This
> > + * prevents deadlocks between the clk/regulator frameworks.
> > + *
> > + * gcc_qupv3_wrap_1_m_ahb_clk
> > + * gcc_qupv3_wrap_1_s_ahb_clk
> > + * gcc_qupv3_wrap1_s5_clk
> > + */
>
> Isn't this a workaround inherited from the downstream control of
> regulators from within the clock core? Does this still apply upstream?
Let me check on this bit...
Thanks
--
~Vinod
