On 6.04.2023 16:44, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > On 17.03.2023 19:20, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> Quoting Konrad Dybcio (2023-03-16 17:31:34) >>> >>> On 16.03.2023 23:58, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 10:35:17PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>>> >>>>> + qcom,clk-disable-unused: >>>>> + type: boolean >>>>> + description: >>>>> + Indicates whether unused RPM clocks can be shut down with the common >>>>> + unused clock cleanup. Requires a functional interconnect driver. >>>> >>>> I don't think this should be QCom specific. Come up with something >>>> common (which will probably have some debate). >>> Generally the opposite (ignoring unused clocks during the cleanup) is >>> the thing you need to opt into. >>> >>> I can however see how (especially with the focus on not breaking things >>> for older DTs) somebody else may also decide to only allow them to be >>> cleaned up conditionally (by marking the clocks that were enabled earlier >>> as enabled in Linux OR not addding clk.flags |= CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED) as we >>> do here. >>> >>> Stephen, Rob, would `clk-disable-unused` be a fitting generic property >>> name for that? Should we also think about `clk-ignore-unused` as a >>> clock-controller-specific alternative to the CCF-wide clk_ignore_unused >>> cmdline? >>> >> >> There are multiple threads on the list about disabling unused clks. >> Moving the decision to disable unused clks to a DT property is yet >> another approach. I'd rather not do that, because it really isn't >> describing the hardware configuration. If anything, I'd expect the >> property to be describing which clks are enabled by the firmware and >> then leave the decision to disable them because they're unused up to the >> software. > After some more thinking, I realized that this could be made opt-in > simply with driver_data.. > > WDYT? ..on a re-evaluation, obviously not a great idea.. Old DTBs will not be happy about that. Konrad > > Konrad
