On 02/23/2016 09:03 PM, Andy Gross wrote: > 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. Ok, agree. > 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). The proper solution would be to handle this in the clock framework. -- 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
