On 09/26/2014 04:35 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 09/23/14 06:38, Tero Kristo wrote:
On 09/22/2014 10:18 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 08/21, Tero Kristo wrote:
/* Skip children who will be reparented to another clock */
if (child->new_parent && child->new_parent != clk)
continue;
Are we not hitting the new_parent check here? I don't understand
how we can be changing parents here unless the check is being
avoided, in which case I wonder why determine_rate isn't being
used.
It depends how the clock underneath handles the situation. The error I
am seeing actually happens with a SoC specific compound clock (DPLL)
which integrates set_rate + mux functionality into a single clock
node. A call to the clk_set_rate changes the parent of this clock
(from bypass clock to reference clock), in addition to changing the
rate (tune the mul+div.) I looked at using the determine rate call
with this type but it breaks everything up... the parent gets changed
but not the clock rate, in addition to some other issues.
Ok. Is this omap3_noncore_dpll_set_rate()?
Yes.
> Can we use determine_rate +
clk_set_parent_and_rate()? At least clk_set_parent_and_rate() would
allow us to do the mult+div and the parent in the same op call, although
I don't understand why setting the parent and then setting the rate is
not going to work.
Well, setting parent first, then rate later causes problems with the
DPLL ending up running with illegal (non-specified) rate, the M+N values
are most likely wrong if you just switch from bypass clock to reference
clock first without programming the M+N first.
I'm interested in the other issues that you mentioned
too.
Mostly these were side-effects from the illegal DPLL setup I guess, like
boot hang, failed drivers etc. I didn't really investigate this that
much as it is much more simpler just to use safe list iteration here.
-Tero
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
