lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: Re: [PATCH 1/1] clk: aspeed: modify some default clks are critical
Date
Hello,
How about this patch progress?
It does impact a lot of machine that when BMC boot at u-boot.
SUART is work for Host. But after boot into kernel, due to the clk disabled.
The SUART is not work for Host anymore.

Regards,
Ryan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 10:25 AM
> To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>; Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
> Cc: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au>; Michael Turquette
> <mturquette@baylibre.com>; Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@aspeedtech.com>;
> BMC-SW <BMC-SW@aspeedtech.com>; Linux ARM
> <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>; linux-aspeed
> <linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org>; linux-clk@vger.kernel.org; Linux Kernel
> Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/1] clk: aspeed: modify some default clks are critical
>
> Stephen,
>
> On 10/14/20 12:16 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Joel Stanley (2020-10-13 22:28:00)
> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 02:50, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Quoting Ryan Chen (2020-09-28 00:01:08)
> >>>> In ASPEED SoC LCLK is LPC clock for all SuperIO device, UART1/UART2
> >>>> are default for Host SuperIO UART device, eSPI clk for Host eSPI
> >>>> bus access eSPI slave channel, those clks can't be disable should
> >>>> keep default, otherwise will affect Host side access SuperIO and SPI slave
> device.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@aspeedtech.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>
> >>> Is there resolution on this thread?
> >>
> >> Not yet.
> >>
> >> We have a system where the BMC (management controller) controls some
> >> clocks, but the peripherals that it's clocking are outside the BMC's
> >> control. In this case, the host processor us using some UARTs and
> >> what not independent of any code running on the BMC.
> >>
> >> Ryan wants to have them marked as critical so the BMC never powers them
> down.
> >>
> >> However, there are systems that don't use this part of the soc, so
> >> for those implementations they are not critical and Linux on the BMC
> >> can turn them off.
> >>
> >> Do you have any thoughts? Has anyone solved a similar problem already?
> >>
> >
> > Is this critical clocks in DT? Where we want to have different DT for
> > different device configurations to indicate that some clks should be
> > marked critical so they're never turned off and other times they
> > aren't so they're turned off?
> >
> > It also sounds sort of like the protected-clocks binding. Where you
> > don't want to touch certain clks depending on the usage configuration
> > of the SoC. There is a patch to make that generic that I haven't
> > applied because it looks wrong at first glance[1]. Maybe not
> > registering those clks to the framework on the configuration that Ryan has is
> good enough?
>
> Could you please be more specific than the patch "looks wrong"? I'm more
> than happy to update the patch to address your concerns, but I cannot do that
> unless I know what your concerns are.
>
> Regards,
> Samuel
>
> > [1]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200903040015.5627-2-samuel@sholland.org
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-01-22 09:19    [W:0.096 / U:3.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site