Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: smd-rpm: Skip proxy votes on clocks for QCM2290

[Imran Shaik <imran.shaik@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 21-09-2026 02:23 pm, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 9/16/26 1:05 PM, Imran Shaik wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11-09-2026 02:36 pm, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> On 9/10/26 3:44 PM, Imran Shaik wrote:
>>>> clk_smd_rpm_handoff() votes both active and sleep RPM resource states for
>>>> every clock, keeping them non-zero until a consumer takes over. If there
>>>> is no consumer, those clocks will remain active in the idle scenario as
>>>> well, and the sleep vote is never cleared, blocking XO shutdown.
>>>>
>>>> Introduce the skip_clks_handoff flag to handle this on QCM2290 clocks,
>>>> keeping other targets unaffected.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 00f64b58874e ("clk: qcom: Add support for SMD-RPM Clocks")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Imran Shaik <imran.shaik@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Are you booting with clk_ignore_unused?
>>>
>>
>> No Konrad, clk_ignore_unused is not present.
>>
>> Irrespective of clk_ignore_unused, the proxy votes are placed to RPM
>> during handoff. If no consumer takes over, those votes remain active,
>> keeping the resource ON in idle and preventing XO shutdown.
> 
> I re-read this and yeah you're right
> 
> Is the handoff functionality necessary at all for non-icc clocks?

Actually, if any consumers surviving on these proxy votes on other
targets as of today, removing the handoff logic could impact boot-up as
well. Hence, introduced the skip_clk_handoff flag to maintain backward
compatibility on other targets.

Thanks,
Imran

> I'm suspecting that this was just a port of the ancient msm-3.10
> logic where the (modified) clock framework had a handoff mechanism
> similar to today's sync_state, except the toning-down of these
> clocks was never added
> 
> Konrad