Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: ti: Add support for dm814x ADPLL

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com> [160217 12:53]:
> Quoting Tony Lindgren (2016-02-17 09:39:49)
> > * Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com> [160216 17:32]:
> > > 
> > > We have a shiny new series that provides a standard way to do this:
> > > 
> > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<1455225554-13267-1-git-send-email-mturquette@baylibre.com>
> > 
> > OK nice, so tagging the MPU and DDR clocks with CLK_IS_CRITICAL or
> > "clock-critical" should allow removing this code. I think in this
> > case I still need to set CLK_IS_CRITICAL as the clock is output 1
> > of the dts defined clock and does not have a separate dts node.
> 
> In fact I hate clock-critical as a DT property and it's only there to
> support legacy DT bindings that store all clk data in DT and have zero
> clk data in C. So please use the CLK_IS_CRITICAL or CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF
> flags in C.
> 
> Do you think you will ever have a driver that wants to gate these
> clocks? Probably not for MPU/DDR, but the HAND_OFF flag is a better fit
> if you do. It's the same as CRITICAL but transfers the prepare/enable
> reference counting to the consumer driver after that driver calls
> clk_get() and clk_prepare_enable() on the HAND_OFF clk.

OK I'll use CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF then. Who knows maybe somebody
somewhere has code running on one of the coprocessors in SRAM that
actually allows gating these :)

> > I can update when those patches hit Linux next, or I can do a
> > follow-up patch later on if we want to avoid the dependency
> > here. Which do you prefer?
> 
> Well, testing is always welcome :-)
>
> If you rebase onto those patches then I'll add your patches to that
> series for testing and merge it that way.

OK will do and repost after some testing.

Regards,

Tony