On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:32 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Jeffrey Hugo (2019-06-07 07:08:46) > > > > As you well know, XO is the root clock for pretty much everything on > > Qualcomm platforms. We are trying to do things "properly" on 8998. > > We are planning on having rpmcc manage it (see my other series), and > > I don't have the rpmcc series in my queue. I think it needs a resend? See the "[PATCH v4 0/6] MSM8998 Multimedia Clock Controller" series. > > > all the other components consume xo from there. Unfortunately we > > cannot control the probe order, particularly when things are built as > > modules, so its possible gpucc might be the first thing to probe. > > Currently, the clock framework will allow that since everything in > > gpucc will just be an orphan. However that doesn't prevent gpucc > > consumers from grabbing their clocks, and we've seen that cause > > issues. > > > > As you've previously explained, you have a ton of work to do to > > refactor things so that a clock will probe defer if its dependencies > > are not present. We'd prefer that functionality, but are not really > > willing to wait for it. Thus, we are implementing the same > > functionality in the driver until the framework handles it for us, at > > which point we'll gladly rip this out. > > Can you add more to the comment? Right now it doesn't explain the _why_ > part that you describe in the first paragraph here. That's what I'm > asking to be put here as a comment. Also, GCC is the one exporting the > XO clk on this platform so I'm a little lost why we're talking about rpm > here. Oh, I see, you wanted the comment expanded. Sorry I didn't understand that earlier. Will do. > > I guess I'm left to do the ton of work myself and get to have clk > providers like this be clk consumers so that probe ordering is correct > and clks aren't exposed until the whole parent chain exists. This is > taking a step backwards and causes me to be sad. I'll take a second look at the list of tasks you outlined, but what I recall was that most of them went over my head, so I wasn't really confident in poking my nose in there. > > > > > > > > > > + if (IS_ERR(xo)) > > > > + return PTR_ERR(xo); > > > > + clk_put(xo); > > > > + > > > > + regmap = qcom_cc_map(pdev, &gpucc_msm8998_desc); > > > > + if (IS_ERR(regmap)) > > > > + return PTR_ERR(regmap); > > > > + > > > > + /* force periph logic on to acoid perf counter corruption */ > > > > > > avoid? > > > > Yes. Do you want a v3 with this fixed? > > Yes, please resend without the binding patch that I've already applied. > Will do.
