From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (Boris Brezillon) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 11:00:18 +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> <20160702204608.257b8bc6@bbrezillon> Message-ID: <20160704110018.76288816@bbrezillon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:47:21 +0200 Olivier Schonken wrote: > Hi Boris > > The amba bus is probed after the PIT driver. So we clearly have a problem in there... > I have today found pck0 - > pck2 to work as well. Would this be good enough to use? But why would we reference one of the programmable clock? AFAICT, the coresight-etb10 block does not depend on any of the programmable clock. > > Regards > > Olivier > > On 2 July 2016 at 20:46, Boris Brezillon > wrote: > > > 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 > >