On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 03:42:52PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 10:51:09AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 06:40:09PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > > OK. How about, "qcom,broken-refclk"? This reflects the fact that the default > > > refclk operation is broken on this platform, so the OS should be prepared for > > > it (by keeping it always on). > > > > Shouldn't that be > > > > qcom,broken-clkreq > > > > since its the CLKREQ# signal used to request REFCLK that is broken, not > > the REFCLK itself? > > > > Darn... You are right. I got carried away by the initial property name. Thanks > for spotting! Thinking some more on this after hitting send: It may still be wrong with a 'broken-clkreq' property in the PHY instead of in the controller (or endpoint). Could there not be other ways to handle a broken clkreq signal so that this really should be a decision made by the OS, for example, to disable L1 substates and clock PM? Simply leaving the refclk always on in the PHY seems like a bit of a hack and I'm not even sure that can be considered correct. Having a property that maps directly to that behaviour has rightly been rejected, but it seems that simply renaming the flag but keeping it in the PHY may still not be the right thing to do here. Johan
