On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 08:47:56PM +0200, Georgi Djakov wrote: > On 23.02.16 г. 19:29, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > > > > > > On 23/02/16 17:21, Georgi Djakov wrote: > >> When the SMEM is probed it defers as it depends on the hardware lock, which > >> is not available yet. But the SMD bus and RPM regulators and clocks depend > >> on SMEM and they defer too. The problem with this is that the order of > >> registering the devices is not optimal and also we may end with messed > >> up serial console as the RPM clocks are not registered yet.. > > I noticed the same issue but was wondering why would we end up with messed up serial console? > > > > Could you add more details on why serial console is messed up? > > > > I thought, serial driver has nothing to do with the rpm clocks directly! > > > > If we don't have the rpm clocks registered, the uart clock is an orphan > and when clk_get_rate() is called on orphan clocks it returns 0 as rate. > In our case the msm_serial driver calls clk_get_rate() and gets 0 rate > as the parent rpm clock has not registered yet. The result is that the > baudrate is set incorrectly. This isn't a probe defer issue w/ the SMEM and hwspinlock. That works properly. This is an issue with the msm_serial either not probe deferring to wait for the rpm clocks or not handling the case of the clk framework giving us a 'bogus' clock. Can we queue off the clk_get_rate being 0 to probe defer for the rpm clocks? (although that is hacky). Regards, Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
