On 2019/11/25 20:30, Jerome Brunet wrote:

On Mon 25 Nov 2019 at 13:01, Jian Hu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2019/11/25 18:14, Jerome Brunet wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

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

quoted

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 ?

Apparently, I was not clear enough so I'll rephrase

quoted

Yes, the orphan reparenting is done when the new provider is
registered.

No it is not done yet. Please check the code.

The reparenting of orphan is done only on clock registration, not on
provider registeration. Now that clocks can be specified by DT, this
probably needs to added.The action of reparenting the orphan is before the provider registration 

with the current code.

That is your problem.

Yes, if the provider is registered before the clock registration, it
will reparent successfully.

Please fix the underlying issue, then you can post your series again.

quoted

Reparenting the orphan will be done when each clock is registered by
devm_clk_hw_register. And at this time the provider has not been
registered. After all clocks are registered by devm_clk_hw_register, the
provider will be registered by devm_of_clk_add_hw_provider.

Reparenting the orphan will fail when fw_name is added alone, the couse is
that devm_clk_hw_register is always running ahead of
devm_of_clk_add_hw_provider.

Please stop bringing the topic of "fw_name" and "name" field together, I
told you 3 times why this is wrong. It is not going to change.

quoted

That is why it will failed to get parent for the orphan clock.

It fails because the provider is not registered when you try to reparent
the orphan.

It shows that you should try again once the provider is registered.

OK, I have exchanged the position for devm_clk_hw_register and 
devm_of_clk_add_hw_provider in meson-eeclk.c.

It reparents successfully for orphan clock.

Is is ok that put devm_of_clk_add_hw_provider ahead?

As far as I am concerned, there is no any effect.

quoted

quoted

.

.

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