Re: [PATCHv9 09/43] CLK: ti: add support for ti divider-clock

[Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>]

On 11/01/2013 04:54 AM, Tero Kristo wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 11:48 AM, Tero Kristo wrote:
>> On 10/31/2013 08:02 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2013 10:57 AM, Tero Kristo wrote:

[...]
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/ti/divider.c b/drivers/clk/ti/divider.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..787bc8f
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/ti/divider.c

[...]
>>>> +    if (!IS_ERR(clk)) {
>>>> +        of_clk_add_provider(node, of_clk_src_simple_get, clk);
>>>> +        ret = of_ti_autoidle_setup(node, regmap);
>>>
>>> if this fails, table will be freed though, we have added provider and
>>> registerd table_regmap, no?
>>
>> Provider and regmap are shared for the whole IP block (CM/PRM whatever.)
>> Those are only initialized once.
> 
> Some minor confusion here in my comment, sorry about that.
> 
> Regmap is shared for the whole IP block and initialized only once, we 
> can't remove it here as it is not owned by this clock. For 
> clock-provider / unregister part, I don't want to clean those up as 1) 
> unregister doesn't currently do anything 2) autoidle setup is not 
> critical failure, it just breaks PM. I can add error print for it though.

Would IP blocks driven by clocks work with the autoidle configuration
broken? I believe we will be writing to DPLL_XYZ_GATE_CTRL? the usage
I believe is around
of_ti_clk_deny_autoidle_all/of_ti_clk_allow_autoidle_all which gets
invoked in omap2_clk_disable_autoidle_all part of xyz SoC init call.
is'nt the reason we do that to ensure we have no potential race when
clocks dissapear on their own without explicit control in critical
configuration paths?


-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon