Re: [PATCH 2/3] memory: atmel-sdramc: remove the driver

[<Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com>]

On 03.01.2023 14:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On 03/01/2023 12:18, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
>> On 03.01.2023 12:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>
>>> On 03/01/2023 11:00, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
>>>> Hi, Krzysztof,
>>>>
>>>> On 08.12.2022 13:45, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
>>>>> Driver does only clock request + enable for DDR clocks. DDR clocks are
>>>>> enabled by bootloader and need to stay that way in Linux. To avoid having
>>>>> these clocks disabled by clock subsystem in case there are no Linux
>>>>> consumers for them the clocks were marked as critical in clock drivers.
>>>>> With this, there is no need to have a separate driver that only does
>>>>> clock request + enable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>
>>>>
>>>> As this patch depends on patch 1/3 from this series, can I have your ack
>>>> for it to take it though clock tree?
>>>
>>> Uh, why does it depend? I understood the changset is bisectable and
>>> removal of unneeded driver will happen later. Otherwise it is not
>>> bisectable...
>>
>> AT91 devices will fail to boot if this patch is applied and 1/3 is not
>> there. This is because clock framework will disable DDR clocks because
>> there will be no consumer for them.
> 
> This I understand, but why do you need this patch to be able to apply
> 1/3? 

To avoid having AT91 devices failing to boot in case your tree (containing
this patch) is merged  first.

> This is problem of bisectability. Not the other way.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>