On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 01:22 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > On 04/06/2016 11:05 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > > > > > > > But see also Geerts comment on the > > > relevant thread where he nicely pinpoint what triggered that > > > behaviour. > > > That said I do find it a bit odd to refer to disabled clock > > > nodes, but > > > that might be me. > > I don't find it odd. What I found odd is clk_get() returning > > -EPROBE_DEFER. > After looking into this issue myself, I must admit that disabled > clocks > were a bad idea. The kernel can't differ disabled device node from no > node at > all (on this level, at least). > So, will you respin your patch and fix the other SoCs? I prefer to wait for the feedback of the clock maintainers on this issue, which Geert has cc'd. Based on that we can hopefully work out if my suggested patch is the correct way forwards. In which case more SoC likely will need fixes. -- Sjoerd Simons Collabora Ltd.
