Re: RFC: imx8qm: imx-scu-clk: probe of clk failed

[Oliver Graute <oliver.graute@gmail.com>]

On 28/02/20, Anson Huang wrote:
> Hi, Oliver
> 
> > Subject: Re: RFC: imx8qm: imx-scu-clk: probe of clk failed
> > 
> > On 27/02/20, Oliver Graute wrote:
> > > Hello Aisheng,
> > > Hello Anson,
> > >
> > > I get the following imx-scu errors when using Linux version
> > > 5.6.0-rc1-next-20200214 with scfw Build 3353, Commit 494c97f3
> > >
> > > It seems that important clocks are off somehow and that lpspi isn't
> > > working because of that. What is the best way to debug such issues?
> > >
> > > [    1.103799] imx-scu scu: NXP i.MX SCU Initialized
> > > [    1.111383] a35_clk: failed to get clock rate -22
> > 
> > After some deeper digging I saw that the reason for "a35_clk: failed" is an
> > IMX_SC_ERR_PARM = 3. Because he trys to get the resource SC_R_A35 which
> > is only available on imx8qxp and not on imx8qm. No clue why he try that
> > instead of SC_R_A53.
> 
> You are running on i.MX8QM board, right? Is it because the A35/A53/A72 clocks
> are registered on same clock driver, so that clock core will calculate their rate during
> clock tree setup? But even A35 clock get rate failed on i.MX8QM, I don't see it will
> impact lpspi.

yes I'am using a i.MX8QM based board. Which clocks are needed to get
lpspi working on imx8qm?
> 
> i.MX8QM is already supported on our internal v5.4 tree, there are some
> changes in clk-scu.c, I pasted some code piece as below, maybe you can
> compare the difference and have a try?

ok I use your proposed code now. A struct clk_scu_pi_ops is missing for
me here. Also I added this:

--- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/imx8-clock.h
+++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/imx8-clock.h
@@ -131,7 +131,9 @@
 #define IMX_ADMA_PWM_CLK                               188
 #define IMX_ADMA_LCD_CLK                               189

-#define IMX_SCU_CLK_END                                        190
+#define IMX_A53_CLK                                    190
+#define IMX_A72_CLK                                    191
+#define IMX_SCU_CLK_END                                        192

--- a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx8qxp.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx8qxp.c
@@ -60,6 +68,8 @@ static int imx8qxp_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)

        /* ARM core */
        clks[IMX_A35_CLK]               = imx_clk_scu("a35_clk", IMX_SC_R_A35, IMX_SC_PM_CLK_CPU, clk_cells);
+       clks[IMX_A53_CLK]               = imx_clk_scu("a53_clk", IMX_SC_R_A53, IMX_SC_PM_CLK_CPU, clk_cells);
+       clks[IMX_A72_CLK]               = imx_clk_scu("a72_clk", IMX_SC_R_A72, IMX_SC_PM_CLK_CPU, clk_cells);


Is it correct to use the imx8qxp clock probing here?

Best regards,

Oliver

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