From: Eric Anholt <hidden> Date: 2015-05-29 21:06:33
We're currently using a fixed frequency clock specified in the DT, so
enabling is a no-op. However, the RPi firmware-based clocks driver
can actually disable unused clocks, so when switching to use it we
ended up losing our MMC clock once all devices were probed.
Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <redacted>
---
v2: Re-disable our clock on sdhci_add_host() failure.
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-bcm2835.c | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
On 29 May 2015 at 23:06, Eric Anholt [off-list ref] wrote:
We're currently using a fixed frequency clock specified in the DT, so
enabling is a no-op. However, the RPi firmware-based clocks driver
can actually disable unused clocks, so when switching to use it we
ended up losing our MMC clock once all devices were probed.
Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <redacted>
From: Stephen Warren <hidden> Date: 2015-06-05 02:59:55
On 05/29/2015 03:06 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
We're currently using a fixed frequency clock specified in the DT, so
enabling is a no-op. However, the RPi firmware-based clocks driver
can actually disable unused clocks, so when switching to use it we
ended up losing our MMC clock once all devices were probed.
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(pltfm_host->clk);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to enable host clk\n");
+ goto err;
+ }
Given that pltfm_host is a "struct sdhci_pltfm_host" i.e. a type
defined/handled by sdhci-pltfm.c , I'm rather surprised that
sdhci-pltfm.c doesn't do this itself. Wouldn't it make sense for it to
do so?
On 5 June 2015 at 04:59, Stephen Warren [off-list ref] wrote:
On 05/29/2015 03:06 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
quoted
We're currently using a fixed frequency clock specified in the DT, so
enabling is a no-op. However, the RPi firmware-based clocks driver
can actually disable unused clocks, so when switching to use it we
ended up losing our MMC clock once all devices were probed.
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(pltfm_host->clk);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to enable host clk\n");
+ goto err;
+ }
Given that pltfm_host is a "struct sdhci_pltfm_host" i.e. a type
defined/handled by sdhci-pltfm.c , I'm rather surprised that
sdhci-pltfm.c doesn't do this itself. Wouldn't it make sense for it to
do so?
We could likely move additional clock management into the sdhci-pltfm.
So we would then remove some duplicated code, but we would potentially
also loose some in flexibility. It's worth an effort to look into.
Please go ahead and have a try. :-)
Kind regards
Uffe