From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pwalmsley@nvidia.com (Paul Walmsley) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:21:22 -0700 Subject: regression: Clock changes in next-20141205 break at least omap4 In-Reply-To: <20141215220224.20398.98259@quantum> References: <20141205165539.GA30437@atomide.com> <5481F79D.4010504@codeaurora.org> <20141205183849.GB30437@atomide.com> <20141212194238.20398.33333@quantum> <20141215220224.20398.98259@quantum> Message-ID: <548F7B02.1090009@nvidia.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 12/15/2014 03:02 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Paul Walmsley (2014-12-12 15:28:32) >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Mike Turquette wrote: >> >>> Quoting Tony Lindgren (2014-12-05 10:38:49) >>>> * Stephen Boyd [141205 10:23]: >>>>> On 12/05/2014 08:55 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks like commit 646cafc6aa4d ("clk: Change clk_ops->determine_rate >>>>>> to return a clk_hw as the best parent") breaks booting at least for >>>>>> omap4. >>>>> Do you get a compilation warning in arch/arm/mach-omap2/dpll3xxx.c ? >>>> Yes so it seems. >>>> >>>>> From what I can tell omap3_noncore_dpll_determine_rate() hasn't been >>>>> updated to take a clk_hw pointer instead of clk pointer. It was there in >>>>> the original patch and I'm not sure why Mike dropped that part while >>>>> applying. >>>> OK that makes sense, Mike should apply that part too. Note that also >>>> include/linux/clk/ti.h needs changed accordingly for struct clk_hw, >>>> which you probably had in your orignal patch too. Assuming that's there, >>>> please feel free to add: >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren >>> I figured out what went wrong here. When I applied Tomeu's changes the >>> OMAP stuff did not apply at all. In fact the .determine_rate callbacks >>> did not exist in clk-next. Paul merged that stuff through his tree[0]. I >>> don't know why I didn't follow up on that at the time. >>> >>> So we need to come up with a solution. Paul can take the OMAP portion of >>> Tomeu's changes[1] for OMAP, but I believe compilation will be broken in >>> his tree until it meets up with mine in linux-next. Or we could set up a >>> shared immutable branch that provides the needed changes. >>> >>> I could either set up a shared branch that includes Tomeu's changes that >>> Paul could merge (will require a rebase of the tip of my tree) or Paul >>> could provide a shared branch of the changes to dpll3xxx.c and >>> dpll4xxx.c that I could merge in. >>> >>> Or I could remove Tomeu's patches from my tree since we're right up >>> against the merge window but I would rather not do that since he has >>> worked tirelessly on this topic. >>> >>> [0] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg377288.html >>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/2/70 >> I don't think there's much that I can do at this point. My tree is quite >> topologically distant from Linus's tree (pjw/omap-pending -> >> tmlind/linux-omap -> arm/arm-soc -> torvalds/linux). So anything I do is >> high-latency. My pull request for Tero's patches was sent to Tony a month >> ago. > Paul, > > I identified the patch in your tree that is missing in mine and, with > Tony's help, applied your for-v3.19/omap-a signed tag to my tree. With > these 5 patches in place I have applied Tero's two patches from > Friday[0]. > > Paul & Tony, are you OK for me to take both of Tero's patches? I'm > already taking stuff in late so it is no trouble for me to pick up "ARM: > OMAP3: clock: fix boot breakage in legacy mode" while I'm at it. > > I'm going to let this get at least one cycle in linux-next before > sending my PR late this week. Hopefully Kevin (Cc'd) can check on the > omap boards in his autobuilder once my tree hits -next? > > Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks for the great teamwork, gang. > > [0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<1418390521-7541-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> > > Regards, > Mike I think Tony's taking the second patch from Tero. - Paul