On 12/30/25 3:53 AM, Rain Yang wrote:

On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 02:53:38AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 12/8/25 3:02 AM, Rain Yang wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

Okay, I’ll submit a patch later.
The commit message should reflect that only CLK_GPU_CGC is enabled.

The commit message , and this change , is unrelated to GPUAPB clock.

The commit message is ambiguous. Could you clarify which parent clock
you are referring to, and whether it can be enabled by CLK_GPU_CGC?
If it was CLK_GPU, CLK_GPU_CGC can't be able to control it.

The commit message clearly states "These new GPU_CGC clock
gate the existing GPU clock." and "GPU_CGC as well as its parent GPU clock."
, I don't perceive any ambiguity, sorry.

Frankly, the whole GPUAPB discussion is entirely unrelated and it only stalls
application of this bugfix and keeps upstream broken. This is not helping.

So unless there is anything in particular that is on-topic and prevents this
patch from being applied, it would be good to apply it, otherwise the GPU on
MX95 in mainline Linux is not working.

Hi Marek,

I’m not opposed to this patch being merged into mainline, but the commit
message needs to be accurate. the parent CLK_GPU cannot be enabled or
disabled externally. The last sentence should clearly state:

Look here, this is what you can do with the MX95 SM:

"
 >$ clock.r
...
083: gpuapb               =  on,  133333333Hz
084: gpu                  =  on,  800000000Hz
...
174: gpu_cgc              =  on,  800000000Hz

 >$ clock.w gpu_cgc off
 >$ clock.w gpu off
 >$ clock.w gpuapb off

 >$ clock.r
...
083: gpuapb               = off,  133333333Hz
084: gpu                  = off,  800000000Hz
...
174: gpu_cgc              = off,  800000000Hz
"

Notice how all clock are disabled, including GPU clock.

That does not agree with your statement.

When the panthor driver enables the GPU core clock, it enables the GPU_CGC.

It also enables all disabled parent clock in the process, which includes 
the GPU clock.

This ensures the description reflects the actual hardware behavior and
avoids confusion for future maintainers.
Thanks for addressing this issue — once the commit message is corrected,
I’m fine with this going in.

See above.