From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:28:50 +0200 From: Peter De Schrijver To: Jon Hunter CC: Prashant Gaikwad , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , "Stephen Warren" , Thierry Reding , Alexandre Courbot , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: tegra: mark TEGRA210_CLK_DBGAPB as always on Message-ID: <20170306142850.GJ26640@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> References: <1488295191-24038-1-git-send-email-pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> <4cf40c25-2ce9-737c-9ccb-06bc2cdb61d7@nvidia.com> <20170306083835.GF26640@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> <6d4dd315-cab6-189d-f383-fb7523fc31bd@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <6d4dd315-cab6-189d-f383-fb7523fc31bd@nvidia.com> Return-Path: pdeschrijver@nvidia.com List-ID: On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:58:29AM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 06/03/17 08:38, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:56:49PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote: > >> > >> On 28/02/17 15:19, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > >>> This is needed to make the JTAG debugging interface work. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Peter De Schrijver > >>> --- > >>> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c | 1 + > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c > >>> index 9a2512a..708f5f1 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c > >>> @@ -2680,6 +2680,7 @@ static void tegra210_cpu_clock_resume(void) > >>> { TEGRA210_CLK_EMC, TEGRA210_CLK_CLK_MAX, 0, 1 }, > >>> { TEGRA210_CLK_MSELECT, TEGRA210_CLK_CLK_MAX, 0, 1 }, > >>> { TEGRA210_CLK_CSITE, TEGRA210_CLK_CLK_MAX, 0, 1 }, > >>> + { TEGRA210_CLK_DBGAPB, TEGRA210_CLK_CLK_MAX, 0, 1 }, > >>> { TEGRA210_CLK_TSENSOR, TEGRA210_CLK_CLK_M, 400000, 0 }, > >>> { TEGRA210_CLK_I2C1, TEGRA210_CLK_PLL_P, 0, 0 }, > >>> { TEGRA210_CLK_I2C2, TEGRA210_CLK_PLL_P, 0, 0 }, > >> > >> Should there be some dependency on say CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL? I am not > >> sure we always want this on for all cases. > > > > Why would you not want it to be always on? > > Purely for power reasons. I do not know how much power keeping this I don't expect it to be significant but I don't have any numbers. > clock running consumes, but I don't like the idea of clocks running all > the time when they are not needed. > Problem is that in this case there is no easy way to determine if the clock needs to be on. Peter.