On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 12:49:13PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 10.07.2024 12:42 PM, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 11:53:41AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >> On 9.07.2024 8:39 AM, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > >>> IPQ SoCs dont involve RPM in managing NoC related clocks and > >>> there is no NoC scaling. Linux itself handles these clocks. > >>> However, these should not be exposed as just clocks and align > >>> with other Qualcomm SoCs that handle these clocks from a > >>> interconnect provider. > >>> > >>> Hence include icc provider capability to the gcc node so that > >>> peripherals can use the interconnect facility to enable these > >>> clocks. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >> > >> Doesn't the USB host need to have its path described to keep working? > > > > Presently, USB host enables GCC_SNOC_USB_CLK directly using > > the clocks/clock-name entries. So it is not dependent on ICC. > > > > Shall I update the USB DT node to use interconnects now itself, > > or wait until this IPQ5332 ICC enablement series is approved? > > Please let me know. > > Definitely so. Now that you registered that clock with the > interconnect framework, the current usage is essentially > circumventing it.. > > Say some consumers casted an ICC vote on that node, and then > the USB driver called set_rate on the clock.. The data from > icc-clk would be discarded Will update, test and post a new version. Thanks Varada
