From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (Boris Brezillon) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 20:46:08 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: at91: sama5d2: add ETM, ETB and ETMCK node In-Reply-To: References: <1467383831-6985-1-git-send-email-olivier.schonken@gmail.com> <1467383831-6985-2-git-send-email-olivier.schonken@gmail.com> <20160701183248.GC2874@piout.net> Message-ID: <20160702204608.257b8bc6@bbrezillon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Olivier, On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 22:07:53 +0200 Olivier Schonken wrote: > Hi Alexandre > > Resending this mail, the previous one was accidentally in html format, > thus rejected from the list. My apologies. > > I did try a couple of options regarding the clock, mck included, but > it would then hang when probing occurs in drivers/amba/bus.c when the > clock gets disabled. The dummy clock solved this issue, but I'm open > to better suggestions. Hm, that's really weird. Is the AMBA bus driver probed before the PIT driver? Anyway, I agree that this dummy clock approach is not ideal. Could we make the apb_pclk clock optional in the AMBA bus driver? The other approach would be to have someone claim the mck clock before the AMBA bus driver, and keep it enabled. Regards, Boris