On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:36:24AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 20.04.2023 09:56, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 03:50:16AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >> On 8.03.2023 22:35, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >>> Keepalive clocks for other platforms were gathered by digging in old > >>> downstream kernels, please give them a test. > >> I have an implementation of rpmcc-within-icc ready(ish) locally. Turns out > >> some SoCs need a keepalive (19.2MHz, active-only) vote on clocks that > >> are NOT governed by interconnect.. So before we can disable clocks, > >> both will need to be implemented.. ugh... I was hoping we could avoid > >> having it in rpmcc.. > > Can you give an example? Which clocks are affected on which SoC? > msm8998/sdm660 and PNoC I don't see a PNoC for 8998/660, do you mean the "cnoc_periph_clk" downstream? Like the other NoCs it seems to be a RPM_BUS_CLK_TYPE, which means it does fit best into interconnect in my opinion. From a quick grep I don't see any usage of it in msm-4.4 downstream other than the active-only keepalive vote. So maybe you could just send that vote once in icc_rpm_smd and then ignore that clock (don't expose it at all)? Thanks, Stephan
