On 07/08/2016 05:23 PM, Michael Turquette wrote: > Quoting Jorge Ramirez (2016-07-08 14:39:50) >> On 07/08/2016 07:14 PM, Michael Turquette wrote: >>> Quoting Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz (2016-07-08 01:11:06) >>>> Allow to specify the clock frequency for any given port via the >>>> assigned-clock-rates device tree property. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-or...@linaro.org> >>>> Tested-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-or...@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c | 5 +++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c >>>> b/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c >>>> index 1b7331e..51867ab 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c >>>> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ >>>> #include <linux/types.h> >>>> #include <linux/of.h> >>>> #include <linux/of_device.h> >>>> +#include <linux/clk/clk-conf.h> >>>> #include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> >>>> #include <linux/sizes.h> >>>> #include <linux/io.h> >>>> @@ -2472,6 +2473,10 @@ static int pl011_probe(struct amba_device *dev, >>>> const struct amba_id *id) >>>> if (IS_ERR(uap->clk)) >>>> return PTR_ERR(uap->clk); >>>> >>>> + ret = of_clk_set_defaults(dev->dev.of_node, false); >>> Change looks good to me, but with one question: should this change be >>> put into more generic code instead of in this specific driver? For >>> instance, we call of_clk_set_defaults from the following files: >>> >>> drivers/base/platform.c >>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c >>> drivers/spi/spi.c >>> >>> And Stephen posted a patch to do this for devices on the AMBA bus: >>> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6501691/ >>> >>> Does Stephen's patch mean that you do not need patch #1? >> I did a quick test (replaced my changes with the patch above) and the >> console broke and the BT stack couldn't communicate to the device over >> the uart...I guess something else needs doing on top of Stephen's change. >> > Let's give Stephen a chance to respond. If he doesn't soon then I'm OK > to merge your two patches. >
Yeah we need to restart that patch. It's been in my "pending" list for a year now it seems. Curious why it broke things, perhaps device probe is failing when it didn't fail before? -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project