On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 02:05:12PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 03:42:52PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 10:51:09AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 06:40:09PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > > > > OK. How about, "qcom,broken-refclk"? This reflects the fact that the default > > > > refclk operation is broken on this platform, so the OS should be prepared for > > > > it (by keeping it always on). > > > > > > Shouldn't that be > > > > > > qcom,broken-clkreq > > > > > > since its the CLKREQ# signal used to request REFCLK that is broken, not > > > the REFCLK itself? > > > > > > > Darn... You are right. I got carried away by the initial property name. Thanks > > for spotting! > > Thinking some more on this after hitting send: It may still be wrong > with a 'broken-clkreq' property in the PHY instead of in the controller > (or endpoint). > > Could there not be other ways to handle a broken clkreq signal so that > this really should be a decision made by the OS, for example, to disable > L1 substates and clock PM? > One has to weigh the power consumption between keeping refclk always on and disabling L1SS. Chaitanya, can you measure power consumption in both cases? > Simply leaving the refclk always on in the PHY seems like a bit of a > hack and I'm not even sure that can be considered correct. > I wouldn't agree it is a hack, even though it may sound like one. The option to keep refclk always on in the PHY is precisely there for usecase like this. - Mani > Having a property that maps directly to that behaviour has rightly been > rejected, but it seems that simply renaming the flag but keeping it in > the PHY may still not be the right thing to do here. > > Johan -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
