Re: 32kHz clock removal causes problems omap_hsmmc

[Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>]

On 12/19/2012 02:01 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> +Sricharan who commited that
> 
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56:20AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> On 12/19/2012 11:45 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote:
>>>> Well, we still haven't got the foggiest idea what the actual problem is
>>>> beyond that it's probably related to the 32kHz clock in some way (unless
>>>> it was one of the other reverts that coincidentally made a difference,
>>>> but we don't know what they were) so it's unlikely that just randomly
>>>> implementing clock support is going to fix anything immediately here.
>>>
>>> This is exactly what I had to revert (as I mentioned in the other email,
>>> I had to revert the other patches otherwise compilation would break):
>>>
>>> 0e8e5c34 "regulator: twl: Remove references to 32kHz clock from DT bindings"
>>> e76ab829 "regulator: twl: Remove references to the twl4030 regulator"
>>> 029dd3ce "regulator: twl: Remove another unused variable warning"
>>
>> Yeah. 32k clock is not provided by twl.
>>
>> As I said I need to take a look at CCF to see if it already there. If it is
>> clock driver + mapping + patch for wl12xx should fix the issue you are facing.
>>
>>> Let me know if you need more info.
>>
>> BTW: have you happened to ubdate u-boot recently? There is a nice easter egg
>> added there:
>> f3f98bb ARM: OMAP4/5: Do not configure non essential pads, clocks, dplls.
>>
>> Which means that _essential_ clocks and pads are no longer configured.
> 
> anything essential you can list ?

Depends on the definition of essential.
Serial and mmc works.
I said it was an easter egg since it was... well... quite a bit of surprise
that the same kernel started to fail for example in all audio operation when I
updated the u-boot, which I tend to do every now and then to see if there are
no regression.

So it was a nice surprise. Even the commit message agreed that it is going to
break the drivers:

    Note that this is going to break the kernel drivers. But this
    is the only way to get things fixed in the kernel.

Usually if I know I will going to break something intentionally I tend to send
warnings and give some grace periods for the interested guys to adopt.

And this is why people are not testing u-boot. We tend to have one working
binary moving from SD card to other and update it only, __only__ when it can
not be avoided.

If we work together, we should work together...

Do not take it personal. I just had tough days...

-- 
Péter