From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from layka.disroot.org (layka.disroot.org [178.21.23.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEB441E6DC0; Wed, 2 Oct 2024 10:31:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.21.23.139 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727865081; cv=none; b=bz5WE0Mjh4uRz20K3awgrhvtBxnzMU/6CG3mQVIpz2jbmzYZ+gDLxfUjqdnfQGWz+zCTxoaaxXOkX52jeNDdFBfjV8QhJfAf21mBPrELVF/v5OgbFcYpuMNfrmWvY0LtaPWKgQVePwV2kcTHh4ypFp+vVlM7WA+C03z/WgDdCCQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727865081; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rOELVSnjZgJ2jLuwmK36lE3rBUWz5L66VNmRiHrxopM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=II6xDFOaf8R4jBF8qawpl6yLJBjb4XMjW1RzRaK8xQgL1VfmGp4+ygBNDDI9w5FKWtQXhxi3CCaY3pXS4LmHGoaZ2xSt3kdjwVKkC2AzWzGR7eU2TMES86iDqeua2rU1lf1/6Z0clFVHbEgv/Yb+6gOUJ13hPJt8AKJekMK9soU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=disroot.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=disroot.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=disroot.org header.i=@disroot.org header.b=mgaU6W4S; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.21.23.139 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=disroot.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=disroot.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=disroot.org header.i=@disroot.org header.b="mgaU6W4S" Received: from mail01.disroot.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by disroot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DBF23D7E; Wed, 2 Oct 2024 12:31:17 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: SPAM Filter at disroot.org Received: from layka.disroot.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (disroot.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id TK-AFE1673VL; Wed, 2 Oct 2024 12:31:17 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=disroot.org; s=mail; t=1727865077; bh=rOELVSnjZgJ2jLuwmK36lE3rBUWz5L66VNmRiHrxopM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=mgaU6W4Saco/58d5mR20FQEGu4JFYvXxbwh7CBQ0+ocwf0qf1Xx6lHX0Fvwgegt+U uDpqd3DW8qCB4ibs9WeVtiV/kv0di7IMYsP8Kic5XrbfAZq/IqvADZMiNgBtMbgyA+ cNsjgV3vSvpJUaGmAWVFYx0qMf5xbchdQVVTOgSW1HUxI09sQXrcOrIa3J+HZEVT/n MF1U6wXneVrB+4KrWf418YRTmDmZ1UYip+uIDyQUVDtDyMTjKVSzQPsk4q8QcE319A PriXAC11/uujFZh22CzfPIWwjhmaKmn+N1+2WVmFR9BoRwOjkw4Rj/1v6ahIca9SC6 zKhOwZwZnQgmg== Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 10:30:55 +0000 From: Yao Zi To: Heiko =?iso-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Philipp Zabel Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Celeste Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] clk: rockchip: Add clock type GATE_NO_SET_RATE Message-ID: References: <20241001042401.31903-2-ziyao@disroot.org> <20241001042401.31903-7-ziyao@disroot.org> <9365795.CDJkKcVGEf@diego> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <9365795.CDJkKcVGEf@diego> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:08:36AM +0200, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Hi, > > Am Dienstag, 1. Oktober 2024, 06:23:59 CEST schrieb Yao Zi: > > This clock type is similar to GATE, but doesn't allow rate setting, > > which presents on RK3528 platform. > > this definitly needs more explanation in the commit message. > > I.e. regular individual gates always set the CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag > because of course the gates themselfs cannot influence the rate. > > > But in general, I'm also not convinced yet. Yes if some driver tries to > change the rate on those, it may affect the parent rate, but that is also > true for the other individual gates. > > So what makes aclk_emmc (as GATE_NO_SET_RATE) more special than > "hclk_emmc" (as regular GATE). [Same for the other clocks of course] . > > > So this either needs more explanation, or for the sake of simplicity > use regular GATE for now for those and we revisit when it becomes > necessary. I agree that more digging is needed for GATE_NO_SET_RATE. If no obvious reason for adding a clock type could be found, will convert these clocks into general GATEs and give it a try. Cheers, Yao Zi