On 08/09/2014 06:20 AM, Heiko Stübner wrote:

Am Freitag, 8. August 2014, 14:58:11 schrieb Doug Anderson:

quoted

Heiko,

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Heiko Stübner [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Am Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2014, 17:30:25 schrieb Mike Turquette:

quoted

Quoting Heiko Stübner (2014-07-31 16:29:34)

quoted

Hi Mike,

Am Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2014, 15:45:23 schrieb Mike Turquette:

quoted

Quoting Heiko Stuebner (2014-07-29 12:12:05)

quoted

The clock-tree contains clocks that should never get disabled
automatically. One example are the base ACLKs, the base supplies
for
all
peripherals.

Therefore add a structure similar to the sunxi clock-tree to
protect
these
special clocks from being disabled.

Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <redacted>
---

  drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3188.c |  7 +++++++
  drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3288.c |  7 +++++++
  drivers/clk/rockchip/clk.c        | 13 +++++++++++++
  drivers/clk/rockchip/clk.h        |  1 +
  4 files changed, 28 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3188.c

b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3188.c index a83a6d8..5aef277 100644

--- a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3188.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3188.c

@@ -599,6 +599,11 @@ static struct rockchip_clk_branch

rk3188_clk_branches[] __initdata = {>

         GATE(ACLK_GPS, "aclk_gps", "aclk_peri", 0,
         RK2928_CLKGATE_CON(8),
         13, GFLAGS),>
  
  };

+static const char *rk3188_critical_clocks[] __initconst = {
+       "aclk_cpu",
+       "aclk_peri",

I'm not against the idea of critical clocks, but I want to verify
that
there is no other driver out there that is a better fit for claiming
these clks via clk_get and enabling them the normal way via
clk_enable?

In the clock hierarchy of Rockchip SoCs, both aclks listed here, are
sources for pclk and hclk, as well as sourcing some other peripheral
gates further below too. So from what I've seen from the clock
diagrams,
there is nothing that would claim these clocks directly, and it
wouldn't
also make any sense to let them get disabled as there will always be
something using them (for example the dram-controller).

Sounds good. Just out of curiosity, under what circumstances would you
want to gate them? Is there a use case for it?

hmm, I don't see a use-case for gating these at runtime right now, simply
because there should be a user for them all the time. (both aclks combined
have at least 68 consumers on the rk3288 and a similar number on the
previous socs)

The only thing I could think of would be something suspend related - which
we don't have yet. But then this would probably happen in the clock
controller itself anyway in some late suspend-related action, so it could
take into account them being defined as critical clocks.

I know Rockchip has some funky stuff planned for memory scaling too.
Perhaps Kever can comment whether these two clocks might need to be
disabled in that case?

hmm looking at the core clock tree, I wouldn't think so.

The only intersection between the ddr-clk, aclk_cpu and aclk_peri is the gpll
which can be a source to both. But the ddr-clk is mainly sourced from the dpll
anyway.

In any case, turning off aclk_cpu/aclk_peri in this scenario wouldn't normally
be possible anyway, as most of the time some pclk_* would be active anyway.

Basically, aclk_cpu/aclk_peri have very little chance to be gated during 
run-time,
but both of then may be gated when system enter suspend mode.

For aclk_cpu, this clock supplies most of clocks in pd_bus actually, 
some clocks not listed
as a module clock will be needed, like cpu I/D bus fetch 
instruction/data from dram via
bus based on aclk_cpu. For this situation, can we use a dummy clock to 
hold the
aclk_cpu not to be gated at run-time?

For aclk_peri, this clock is able to be gated run-time in theory, 
although it's no use
in actual system, because we have many devices on this clock and at most 
of the time
some of then would be active just as you have mentioned.

The system suspend is another scenario, and we tend to gate both of the 
clock if possible,
can we do that if this patch is applied?

-Kever

quoted

In any case, this patch fixes a hang at boot when using the PWM driver
that just landed, so:

Tested-by: Doug Anderson <redacted>

thanks


Heiko

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html