On 04/06, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 15:11 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > CC Mike, Stephen, linux-clk (this time with the new Mike)
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Sjoerd Simons
> > <sjoerd.simons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > clk_get on a disabled clock node will return EPROBE_DEFER, which
> > > can
> > > cause drivers to be deferred forever if such clocks are referenced
> > > in
> > > their clocks property.
> > Is this a side effect of commit 3e5dd6f6e690048d ("clk: Ignore
> > disabled DT
> > clock providers")?
>
> Yes it seems so. Reverting that patch means that i can drop this one
> and get the expected behaviour again.
The DT is broken then? Is it possible to mark these status =
"okay" so that things work again?
>
> Though even so I'm not sure what the convention is for clocks like
> these, the r8a7791.dtsi is inconsistent, as some are disabled while
> others (e.g. the audio clocks) are 0hz. Would be good to get some input
> on that regardless.
>
What's the question here?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
