Hi, On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 5:17 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Doug Anderson (2024-03-28 09:39:54) > > > > I spent a bunch of time discussing this offline with Stephen and I'll > > try to summarize. Hopefully this isn't too much nonsense... > > > > 1. We'll likely land the patches downstream in ChromeOS for now while > > we're figuring things out since we're seeing actual breakages. Whether > > to land upstream is a question. The first patch is a bit of a hack but > > unlikely to cause any real problems. The second patch seems correct > > but it also feels like it's going to cause stuck clocks for a pile of > > other SoCs because we're not adding hacks similar to the sc7180 hack > > for all the other SoCs. I guess we could hope we get lucky or play > > whack-a-mole? ...or we try to find a more generic solution... Dunno > > what others think. > > I think we should hope to get lucky or play whack-a-mole and merge > something like this series. If we have to we can similarly turn off RCGs > or branches during driver probe that are using shared parents like we > have on sc7180. This is OK w/ me, but of course I'm super biased since the only Qualcomm platform I'm involved in is sc7180 Chromebooks and that's handled by your series. If it helps, I suppose you could add: Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> IMO it would be good to get Bjorn or Dmitry to buy in and maybe post a PSA and/or request for testing to a few IRC channels where folks hang out (#linux-msm, #freedreno and #aarch64-laptops, maybe?) -Doug
