On Thu 03 Sep 08:40 PDT 2015, Georgi Djakov wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On 09/02/2015 11:31 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 08/03, Georgi Djakov wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-smd-rpm.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-smd-rpm.c
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..e564673ec3a5
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-smd-rpm.c
>
> [..]
>
> >> +static int clk_smd_rpm_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> >> + unsigned long parent_rate)
> >> +{
> >> + struct clk_smd_rpm *r = to_clk_smd_rpm(hw);
> >> + int ret = 0;
> >> +
> >> + if (r->enabled) {
> >> + u32 value;
> >> + struct clk_smd_rpm *peer = r->peer;
> >> +
> >> + /* Take peer clock's rate into account only if it's enabled. */
> >> + if (peer->enabled)
> >
> > This peer stuff almost doesn't even matter because we're only
> > sending active set requests. Why can't this code be updated to
> > send both active and sleep set requests? The sleep set stuff
> > won't be cached, etc., but I don't see a problem in doing both.
> > Otherwise we should drop all the peer stuff until we introduce
> > active only clocks.
>
> Initially I tried sending both active and sleep sets, but as they are
> not cached like in downstream (yet) i got hangs during boot. Disabling
> caching in downstream kernel also caused the same hangs, so i left
> this out for now. Will try debugging it further.
>
This sounds odd, although I presume the downstream code is rarely/never
tested with the caching disabled.
Can you please retry this with [1] applied (should be in -next), the RPM
fifo is tiny, so I would not be surprised if this could be your problem.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/24/756
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
