On Thu 21 Nov 2019 at 04:21, Jian Hu [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi, Jerome

On 2019/11/20 23:35, Jerome Brunet wrote:

quoted

On Wed 20 Nov 2019 at 10:28, Jian Hu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi, jerome

Is there any problem about fixed_pll_dco's parent_data?

Now both name and fw_name are described in parent_data.

Yes, there is a problem.  This approach is incorrect, as I've tried to
explain a couple times already. Let me try to re-summarize why this
approach is incorrect.

Both fw_name and name should be provided when it is possible that
the DT does not describe the input clock. IOW, it is only for controllers
which relied on the global name so far and are now starting to describe
the clock input in DT

This is not your case.
Your controller is new and DT will have the correct
info

You are trying work around an ordering issue by providing both fw_name
and name. This is not correct and I'll continue to nack it.

If the orphan clock is not reparented as you would expect, I suggest you
try to look a bit further at how the reparenting of orphans is done in
CCF and why it does not match your expectation.

I have debugged the handle for orphan clock in CCF, Maybe you are missing
the last email.

Nope, got it the first time

Even though the clock index exit, it will get failed for the orphan clock's
parent clock due to it has not beed added to the provider.

If the provider is not registered yet, of course any query to it won't
work. This why I have suggested to this debug *further* :

* Is the orphan reparenting done when a new provider is registered ?
* If not, should it be done ? is this your problem ?



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel