linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: OMAP2+: hwmod data: Fix the wrong clkdm assigned to PRCM modules
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:38:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FD73847.5050205@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FD65F12.2050805@ti.com>

Hi Paul,

On 6/11/2012 11:11 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> On 6/11/2012 7:26 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>>
>>> The following commit (794b480a37e3d284d6ee7344d8a737ef60476ed5) was
>>> adding
>>> the PRCM IPs data for PRCM, CM, PRCM_MPU and SCRM.
>>> The clkdm entry are not the correct ones and does not exist in the
>>> system.
>>>
>>> Replace them with the proper wkup, l4_ao and l4_cfg.
>>
>> This does not match either the publicly avaiable documentation and the
>> internal NDA hardware specifications[1].
>
> That's almost true, until I realized that the clock domain modules list
> contain this information (clock.py/clock_domain['l4_wkup']['modules']).
> Now, I'm wondering as well why this is not documented better. I'll check
> that tomorrow.

OK, I've just spent 2 hours with HW folks trying to get the real truth...

In fact, this information is not even accurate :-(

There is no such thing as clock domain for PRCM IPs. These IPs are 
considered as clock generator or reset generator and thus does not 
belong to any clock domain.
This information was used to capture the power domain where they belong 
and thus the closest clock domain was used for that, but this is purely 
artificial.

Their first question was, why do you guys need that at the first place???

I guess this question is valid. Since we do not have any SW control, 
this information is completely useless except to potentially avoid 
de-referencing null clkdm.

So I guess it is much better to just take care of that and avoid 
populating with wrong or fake clock domains.

Going a little bit further, these IPs do not even have modulemode, or 
whatever SW control. Even the hwmod it not applicable for them. It 
should just be a regular platform_device and thus deserve a simple entry 
in DT without any hwmod attribute.

Bottom-line, I think we should simply get rid of these PRCM hwmod 
entries and the corresponding fake clock domains.

Does that make sense to you?

Regards,
Benoit

  reply	other threads:[~2012-06-12 12:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-11 16:47 [PATCH 0/2] ARM: OMAP2+: Fix errors in PRCM hwmods + wrong clkdm Benoit Cousson
2012-06-11 16:47 ` [PATCH 1/2] ARM: OMAP2+: hwmod data: Fix the wrong clkdm assigned to PRCM modules Benoit Cousson
2012-06-11 17:26   ` Paul Walmsley
2012-06-11 21:11     ` Cousson, Benoit
2012-06-12 12:38       ` Cousson, Benoit [this message]
2012-06-13 23:43         ` Paul Walmsley
2012-06-11 16:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ARM: OMAP2+: clockdomains: make {prm, cm}_clkdm common" Benoit Cousson
2012-06-11 17:31   ` Paul Walmsley

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4FD73847.5050205@ti.com \
    --to=b-cousson@ti.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).