Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2018-11-29 23:24:20)
> On Thu 29 Nov 23:05 PST 2018, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> > Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2018-11-29 22:52:57)
> > > Keep the two clocks enabled, so that the platform passes
> > > clk_disable_unused().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8998.c | 2 ++
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8998.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8998.c
> > > index 9f0ae403d5f5..d89f8e7c2a59 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8998.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8998.c
> > > @@ -1972,6 +1972,7 @@ static struct clk_branch gcc_hmss_dvm_bus_clk = {
> > > .enable_mask = BIT(0),
> > > .hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
> > > .name = "gcc_hmss_dvm_bus_clk",
> > > + .flags = CLK_IS_CRITICAL,
> >
> > Please add a comment about why they're critical. This is a temporary
> > solution?
> >
>
> Disabling them in clk_disable_unused() are bad, mkay...
Ugh sad.
>
>
> SDM845 marks the equivalent clocks as critical with a comment that they
> must be on for system operation... I'm uncertain what the exact purpose
> of these two clocks are, so I don't have a better explanation right now.
>
Ok. But does any driver ever want to use it? It may make more sense to
just remove it entirely and not touch it.
