lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 1/1] clk: aspeed: modify some default clks are critical
Date
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au>
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 8:47 AM
> To: Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@aspeedtech.com>; Samuel Holland
> <samuel@sholland.org>; Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>; Joel Stanley
> <joel@jms.id.au>
> Cc: BMC-SW <BMC-SW@aspeedtech.com>; linux-aspeed
> <linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org>; Michael Turquette
> <mturquette@baylibre.com>; Linux Kernel Mailing List
> <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; linux-clk@vger.kernel.org; Linux ARM
> <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] clk: aspeed: modify some default clks are critical
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, at 18:45, Ryan Chen wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Maybe it's worth taking Ryan's patch for now, and when the protected-clocks
> binding gets merged we can rip out the CLK_IS_CRITICAL flags and convert the
> Aspeed devicetrees to use protected-clocks instead?
>
> The only issue I see with that plan is it becomes ambiguous as to which clock
> each platform considers crititical/in-need-of-protection.
>
Hello Joel,
Will you take this patch? Or you have another approach I may modify for it.

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.or
> > > > g
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-01 08:21    [W:0.087 / U:0.824 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site