On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:40:21PM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 16:51, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 04:43:57PM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 14:56, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > If we have a BAM clock in the DT we are able to turn on the BAM > > > > controller while probing, so there is no need to read "num-channels" > > > > and "qcom,num-ees" from the DT. It can be read more accurately directly > > > > from the identification registers of the BAM. > > > > > > > > This simplifies setting up typical controlled-remotely BAM DMAs in the > > > > DT that can be turned on via a clock (e.g. the BLSP DMA). > > > > > > Can you please list which qcom board(s) you tested this patch on? > > > > > > > It works fine at least on MSM8916/DB410c (for blsp_dma) and MDM9607 > > (blsp_dma and qpic_dma (for NAND)). More testing would be much > > appreciated of course! > > I tested this yesterday on RB1/RB2, RB5 and saw no improvement, so was wondering > why exactly is this needed and which platforms are impacted. > RB1/RB2 should be able to benefit from this for the cryptobam if you add the rpmcc clock to it, see my reply in [1]. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/ZGdLCdSof027mk5u@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Personally I don't see much of a risk: If enabling the clock doesn't > > actually enable the BAM controller, then the clock probably does not > > belong to the BAM in the first place... :) > > Right, but I think the commit message needs a bit more clarity to > reflect that it is now proposed to check for the bam_clk presence > earlier in the _probe flow (as compared to earlier). > Sure, I will try to clarify the commit message a bit in v2. Thanks, Stephan
