Re: [PATCH v9 01/10] clk: fix initial state of critical clock's parents

[James Liao]

On Fri, 2016-07-01 at 18:21 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> (Resending to everyone)
> 
> On 06/22, Erin Lo wrote:
> > From: James Liao <jamesjj.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > This patch fixed wrong state of parent clocks if they are registered
> > after critical clocks.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: James Liao <jamesjj.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Erin Lo <erin.lo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> It would be nice if you included the information about the
> problem from James' previous mail. This says what it does, but
> doesn't explain what the problem is and how it is fixing it.
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/clk/clk.c | 9 ++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > index d584004..e9f5f89 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > @@ -2388,8 +2388,15 @@ static int __clk_core_init(struct clk_core *core)
> >  	hlist_for_each_entry_safe(orphan, tmp2, &clk_orphan_list, child_node) {
> >  		struct clk_core *parent = __clk_init_parent(orphan);
> >  
> > -		if (parent)
> > +		if (parent) {
> >  			clk_core_reparent(orphan, parent);
> > +
> > +			if (orphan->prepare_count)
> > +				clk_core_prepare(parent);
> > +
> > +			if (orphan->enable_count)
> > +				clk_core_enable(parent);
> > +		}
> >  	}
> 
> I'm pretty sure I pointed this problem out to Mike when the
> critical clk patches were being pushed. I can't recall what the
> plan was though to fix the problem. I'm pretty sure he said that
> clk_core_reparent() would take care of it, but obviously it is
> not doing that. Or perhaps it was that clk handoff should figure
> out that the parents of a critical clk are also on and thus keep
> them on.

Hi Mike

Is there any other patch to fix this issue? Or did I misuse critical
clock flag?


Best regards,

James