On 20.04.2023 12:04, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > 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" It's the same, but Qualcomm kept changing the name every kernel release, so that's why we have 50 defines for the same thing upstream :( > 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)? Hm, perhaps that does sound like a good idea! As far as I understand, it's governed internally.. Older SoCs had a separate PNoC fabric exposed. Konrad > > Thanks, > Stephan
