Hi Iaroslav, On 09/03/2016 07:45 PM, Iaroslav Gridin wrote: > Without that, QCE performance is about 2x less. On which platform? The clock rates are per SoC. > > Signed-off-by: Iaroslav Gridin <voker57@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/crypto/qce/core.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > drivers/crypto/qce/core.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c > index 0cde513..657354c 100644 > --- a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c > +++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c > @@ -193,6 +193,10 @@ static int qce_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > > + qce->core_src = devm_clk_get(qce->dev, "core_src"); > + if (IS_ERR(qce->core_src)) > + return PTR_ERR(qce->core_src); > + > qce->core = devm_clk_get(qce->dev, "core"); > if (IS_ERR(qce->core)) > return PTR_ERR(qce->core); > @@ -205,10 +209,20 @@ static int qce_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > if (IS_ERR(qce->bus)) > return PTR_ERR(qce->bus); > > - ret = clk_prepare_enable(qce->core); > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(qce->core_src); > if (ret) > return ret; > > + ret = clk_set_rate(qce->core_src, 100000000); Could you point me from where you got this number? Also I think you shouldn't be requesting "core_src" it should be a parent of "core" clock in the clock tree. Did you tried to set rate on "core" clock? regards, Stan -- 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
