On 17/02/2014 16:21, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 03:25:22PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: >> On 17/02/2014 15:13, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 01:34:57PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: >>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 07:19:06PM +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: >>>>> This patch set fixes clk init order that went upside-down with >>>>> v3.14. I haven't really investigated what caused this, but I assume >>>>> it is related with DT node reordering by addresses. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, with v3.14 for MVEBU SoCs, the clock gating driver gets >>>>> registered before core clocks driver. Unfortunately, we cannot >>>>> return -EPROBE_DEFER in drivers initialized by clk_of_init. As the >>>>> init order for our drivers is always core clocks before clock gating, >>>>> we maintain init order ourselves by hooking CLK_OF_DECLARE to one >>>>> init function that will register core clocks before clock gating >>>>> driver. >>>>> >>>>> This patch is based on pre-v3.14-rc1 mainline and should go in as >>>>> fixes for it. As we now send MVEBU clk pull-requests to Mike directly, >>>>> I suggest Jason picks it up as a topic branch. >>>>> >>>>> The patches have been boot tested on Dove and compile-tested only >>>>> for Kirkwood, Armada 370 and XP. >>>>> >>>>> Sebastian Hesselbarth (4): >>>>> clk: mvebu: armada-370: maintain clock init order >>>>> clk: mvebu: armada-xp: maintain clock init order >>>>> clk: mvebu: dove: maintain clock init order >>>>> clk: mvebu: kirkwood: maintain clock init order >>>>> >>>>> drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-370.c | 21 ++++++++++----------- >>>>> drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-xp.c | 20 +++++++++----------- >>>>> drivers/clk/mvebu/dove.c | 19 +++++++++---------- >>>>> drivers/clk/mvebu/kirkwood.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++------------------ >>>>> 4 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Whole series applied to mvebu/clk-fixes. >>>> >>> >>> Are we still in time to consider Emilio's oneline proposal? >>> (Emilio: would you mind preparing a suitable patch against dove, >>> kirkwood, armada370/xp, so we can see the real thing?). >> >> I am still strongly against this proposal because hard-coded the parent >> clock name in the driver seems very wrong and moreover in some circumstances >> (if there is no output-name, which is our default case) this proposal >> just ignored the parent clock given by the device tree and this looked >> more wrong. >> > > So you're against the proposal as a permanent fix, *and* against the > proposal as a workaround fix?
Yes > >>> >>> Sebastian fix works perfect, and it easy to understand. However, it has >>> quite a large diffstat. When compared to Emilio's oneline proposal, it >>> seems to me it would be preferable, unless it's broken. >>> >>> Workaround or not, the fact is this code will be in v3.14, so maybe we >>> can spend some time considering a cleaner option. >>> > > Before discussing the solution as compared to your for-v3.15 clock > registration order patch, I wanted to trigger some discussion around > replacing this big and intrusive workaround with Emilio's oneline fix. > > Let's suppose we're considering them as workaround to live just one or > two releases. Wouldn't it be better to take the least instrusive? > The better solution is the one which doesn't add another regression and until today I though we had an agreement to use the patch set from Sebastian. If I remember well Jason had sent a pull request for it. -- Gregory Clement, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
