On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 02:03:57PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 05/07/15 08:17, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 05/01/15 15:07, Heiko Stübner wrote: > >>> Am Freitag, 1. Mai 2015, 13:52:47 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > >>> > >>>>> Instead I guess we could hook it less deep into clk_get_sys, like in the > >>>>> following patch? > >>>> It looks like it will work at least, but still I'd prefer to keep the > >>>> orphan check contained to clk.c. How about this compile tested only > >>>> patch? > >>> I gave this a spin on my rk3288-firefly board. It still boots, the clock > >>> tree > >>> looks the same and it also still defers nicely in the scenario I needed it > >>> for. The implementation also looks nice - and of course much more compact > >>> than > >>> my check in two places :-) . I don't know if you want to put this as > >>> follow-up > >>> on top or fold it into the original orphan-check, so in any case > >>> > >>> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]> > >>> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]> > >> Thanks. I'm leaning towards tossing your patch 2/2 and replacing it with > >> my patch and a note that it's based on an earlier patch from you. > > It appears this has landed in linux-next in the form of 882667c1fcf1 > > clk: prevent orphan clocks from being used. A bunch of boot failures > > for sunxi in today's linux-next[1] were bisected down to that patch. > > > > I confirmed that reverting that commit on top of next/master gets > > sunxi booting again. > > > > > > Thanks for the report. I've removed the two clk orphan patches from > clk-next. Would it be possible to try with next-20150507 and > clk_ignore_unused on the command line?
This makes it work, but it's not really an option. > Also we can try to see if critical clocks aren't being forced on by > applying this patch and looking for clk_get() failures And that shows that the CPU and DDR clocks are not protected, which obviously is pretty mad. I've mass converted all our probing code to use OF_CLK_DECLARE, and make things work again. http://code.bulix.org/5goa5j-88345?raw Is this an acceptable solution? We were already moving to this, I'm not really fond of doing this like that, but I guess this whole debacle makes it necessary. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
