Re: [PATCH 08/13] clk: qcom: hfpll: CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED

[Jorge Ramirez]

On 1/17/19 11:08, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-01-19, 09:38, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
>> COMMON_CLK_DISABLED_UNUSED relies on the enable_count reference counter
>> to disable the clocks that were enabled by the firwmare and not by the
>> drivers.
>>
>> the cpufreq driver does not enable the cpu clock.
>>
>> so when clk_change_rate is called, the enable_count counter is not
>> incremented and therefore it just remains null since this was enabled by
>> the firmware.
>>
>> I tried doing:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
>> index e58bfcb..5a9f83e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
>> @@ -124,6 +124,10 @@ static int resources_available(void)
>>                 return ret;
>>         }
>>
>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(cpu_clk);
>> + if (ret)
>> +         return ret;
>> +
>>         clk_put(cpu_clk);
>>
>>         name = find_supply_name(cpu_dev);
>>
>>
>> and that removed the need for CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED. But I am not sure of
>> the system wide consequences of that change to cpufreq.
> 
> If the cpufreq driver enables it then it should disable it on exit as
> well, right ? And in that case if you unload your driver's module, you
> will hang the system as the clock will get disabled :)

ah, of course, sorry was over-thinking this thing :)

> 
> Every other platform must either be marking it with CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED
> or they must be doing clk_enable from somewhere, maybe the CPU online
> path, not sure though.
> 

since this clock is enabled by the firmware, it seems to me that using
CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED remains the best option.