On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:16:18PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Julien Grall wrote:

quoted

On 06/07/16 02:34, Michael Turquette wrote:

quoted

Hi!

Hello Michael,

quoted

Quoting Dirk Behme (2016-06-30 03:32:32)

quoted

Some clocks might be used by the Xen hypervisor and not by the Linux
kernel. If these are not registered by the Linux kernel, they might be
disabled by clk_disable_unused() as the kernel doesn't know that they
are used. The clock of the serial console handled by Xen is one
example for this. It might be disabled by clk_disable_unused() which
stops the whole serial output, even from Xen, then.

This whole thread had me confused until I realized that it all boiled
down to some nomenclature issues (for me).

This code does not _register_ any clocks. It simply gets them and
enables them, which is what every other clk consumer in the Linux kernel
does. More details below.

quoted

Up to now, the workaround for this has been to use the Linux kernel
command line parameter 'clk_ignore_unused'. See Xen bug

http://bugs.xenproject.org/xen/bug/45

clk_ignore_unused is a band-aid, not a proper medical solution. Setting
that flag will not turn clocks on for you, nor will it guarantee that
those clocks are never turned off in the future. It looks like you
figured this out correctly in the patch below but it is worth repeating.

Also the new CLK_IS_CRITICAL flag might be of interest to you, but that
flag only exists as a way to enable clocks that must be enabled for the
system to function (hence, "critical") AND when those same clocks do not
have an accompanying Linux driver to consume them and enable them.

I don't think we want the kernel to enable the clock for the hypervisor. We
want to tell the kernel "don't touch at all to this clock, it does not belong
to you".

Right, and that's why I was suggesting that another way to do this would
be to set the "status" to "disabled" in Xen: so that Linux would leave
the clock alone. But in that case Linux would not be happy to see
disabled clocks which are actually supposed to be used by some devices.

If you were to do that, that would cover the entire clock-controller,
not necessarily for the individual clock line (as this does not
necessarily have a node of its own). So you'd prevent the use of other
clocks owned by that controller.

That's also not sufficient, as you'd have to do the same for resources
required to keep that clock active (parent clocks from different
controllers, regulators, GPIOs, etc).

I don't think that will work other than in very basic cases.

Thanks,
Mark.