On 20.07.2023 21:52, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 08:24:01PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> Very surprisingly, qcm2290 does not seem to require any interface >> clocks. > > What does this mean exactly? The interconnect .sync_state() is > responsible to drop the initial maximum bandwidth votes, with the > assumption that all active devices have voted for the bandwidth they > need. How does this relate to "requiring interface clocks"? If it required such clocks to be present, sync_state could not complete, as trying to access some nodes would crash the platform due to unclocked access. > >> It's therefore safe to enable sync_state to park unused devices. >> Do so. > > Doesn't this make everything painfully slow? There are no interconnect > consumers at all in qcm2290.dtsi. I would expect that all bandwidths > end up at minimum. There are no interconnect providers defined in qcm2290.dtsi. Konrad
