On 20-10-20, 10:52, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 03:11:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 20-10-20, 10:37, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 11:24:32AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > On 20-10-20, 10:35, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > On 19-10-20, 15:10, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 04:05:35PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > > > On 19-10-20, 11:12, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes it has clocks property but used by SCMI(for CPUFreq/DevFreq) and not > > > > > > > > by any clock provider driver. E.g. the issue you will see if "clocks" > > > > > > > > property is used instead of "qcom,freq-domain" on Qcom parts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, I understand. But what I still don't understand is why it fails > > > > > > > for you. You have a clocks property in DT for the CPU, the OPP core > > > > > > > tries to get it and will get deferred-probed, which will try probing > > > > > > > at a later point of time and it shall work then. Isn't it ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope unfortunately. We don't have clock provider, so clk_get will > > > > > > never succeed and always return -EPROBE_DEFER. > > > > > > > > > > Now this is really bad, you have a fake clocks property, how is the > > > > > OPP core supposed to know it ? Damn. > > > > > > > > What about instead of fixing the OPP core, which really is doing the > > > > right thing, we fix your driver (as you can't fix the DT) and add a > > > > dummy CPU clk to make it all work ? > > > > > > > > > > I really would avoid that. I would rather change the binding as there is > > > no single official users of that binding in the upstream tree. > > > > But how will you solve backward compatibility thing then ? > > > > I am just betting on the fact that no users upstream means no backward > compatibility needed. If someone raises issue we need to add backward > compatibility with dummy clk as you suggested. Okay. I would have done a change in the OPP core to fix the issue, but the current code looks correct and we shouldn't change it to satisfy buggy users. I hope that makes sense. -- viresh
