From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org (Jorge Ramirez) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 08:42:30 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] tty: amba-pl011: add support for clock frequency setting via dt In-Reply-To: <57804897.1080101@codeaurora.org> References: <1467965467-28180-1-git-send-email-jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org> <146799807004.73491.2602277598493203375@resonance> <57801DA6.5010506@linaro.org> <146802378337.73491.10770797315435166004@resonance> <57804897.1080101@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <57809CD6.2090004@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/09/2016 02:43 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 07/08/2016 05:23 PM, Michael Turquette wrote: >> Quoting Jorge Ramirez (2016-07-08 14:39:50) >>> On 07/08/2016 07:14 PM, Michael Turquette wrote: >>>> Quoting Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz (2016-07-08 01:11:06) >>>>> Allow to specify the clock frequency for any given port via the >>>>> assigned-clock-rates device tree property. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz >>>>> Tested-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c | 5 +++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c b/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c >>>>> index 1b7331e..51867ab 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c >>>>> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ >>>>> #include >>>>> #include >>>>> #include >>>>> +#include >>>>> #include >>>>> #include >>>>> #include >>>>> @@ -2472,6 +2473,10 @@ static int pl011_probe(struct amba_device *dev, const struct amba_id *id) >>>>> if (IS_ERR(uap->clk)) >>>>> return PTR_ERR(uap->clk); >>>>> >>>>> + ret = of_clk_set_defaults(dev->dev.of_node, false); >>>> Change looks good to me, but with one question: should this change be >>>> put into more generic code instead of in this specific driver? For >>>> instance, we call of_clk_set_defaults from the following files: >>>> >>>> drivers/base/platform.c >>>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c >>>> drivers/spi/spi.c >>>> >>>> And Stephen posted a patch to do this for devices on the AMBA bus: >>>> >>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6501691/ >>>> >>>> Does Stephen's patch mean that you do not need patch #1? >>> I did a quick test (replaced my changes with the patch above) and the >>> console broke and the BT stack couldn't communicate to the device over >>> the uart...I guess something else needs doing on top of Stephen's change. >>> >> Let's give Stephen a chance to respond. If he doesn't soon then I'm OK >> to merge your two patches. >> > > Yeah we need to restart that patch. It's been in my "pending" list for a > year now it seems. > > Curious why it broke things, perhaps device probe is failing when it > didn't fail before? > um, I retested again this morning and it is all good - I was also a bit surprised when things failed yesterday (it seems one of the wires on my board was loose, sorry). So AFAIC your patch addresses the issue in a much generic (better) way and there are no regressions on a HiKey board running a 4.4 kernel.