On 3/14/24 14:50, Gabor Juhos wrote:
2024. 03. 13. 19:36 keltezéssel, Konrad Dybcio írta:
On 3/11/24 16:06, Gabor Juhos wrote:
Booting v6.8 results in a hang on various IPQ5018 based boards.
Investigating the problem showed that the hang happens when the
clk_alpha_pll_stromer_plus_set_rate() function tries to write
into the PLL_MODE register of the APSS PLL.
Checking the downstream code revealed that it uses [1] stromer
specific operations for IPQ5018, whereas in the current code
the stromer plus specific operations are used.
The ops in the 'ipq_pll_stromer_plus' clock definition can't be
changed since that is needed for IPQ5332, so add a new alpha pll
clock declaration which uses the correct stromer ops and use this
new clock for IPQ5018 to avoid the boot failure.
1.
https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/qsdk/oss/kernel/linux-ipq-5.4/-/blob/NHSS.QSDK.12.4/drivers/clk/qcom/apss-ipq5018.c#L67
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: 50492f929486 ("clk: qcom: apss-ipq-pll: add support for IPQ5018")
Signed-off-by: Gabor Juhos <j4g8y7@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Based on v6.8.
---
drivers/clk/qcom/apss-ipq-pll.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/apss-ipq-pll.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/apss-ipq-pll.c
index 678b805f13d45..11f1ae59438f7 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/qcom/apss-ipq-pll.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/apss-ipq-pll.c
@@ -55,6 +55,24 @@ static struct clk_alpha_pll ipq_pll_huayra = {
},
};
+static struct clk_alpha_pll ipq_pll_stromer = {
+ .offset = 0x0,
+ .regs = ipq_pll_offsets[CLK_ALPHA_PLL_TYPE_STROMER_PLUS],
CLK_ALPHA_PLL_TYPE_STROMER?
I admit that using CLK_ALPHA_PLL_TYPE_STROMER would be less confusing. However
'ipq_pll_offsets' array has no entry for that enum, and given the fact that the
CLK_ALPHA_PLL_TYPE_STROMER_PLUS entry uses the correct register offsets it makes
little sense to add another entry with the same offsets.
Although the 'clk_alpha_pll_regs' in clk-alpha-pll.c has an entry for
CLK_ALPHA_PLL_TYPE_STROMER, but the offsets defined there are not 'exactly' the
same as the ones defined locally in 'ipq_pll_offsets'. They will be identical if
[1] gets accepted but we are not there yet.
Oh, I completely overlooked that this driver has its own array.. Hm..
I suppose it would make sense to rename these indices to IPQ_PLL_x to
help avoid such confusion..
Konrad
