Hi, I have a small comment that can definitely be addressed in a subsequent patch
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:28:06PM +0200, Jernej Skrabec wrote:
> + dev->bus_clk = devm_clk_get(dev->dev, "bus");
> + if (IS_ERR(dev->bus_clk)) {
> + dev_err(dev->dev, "Failed to get bus clock\n");
> +
> + return PTR_ERR(dev->bus_clk);
> + }
> +
> + dev->mod_clk = devm_clk_get(dev->dev, "mod");
> + if (IS_ERR(dev->mod_clk)) {
> + dev_err(dev->dev, "Failed to get mod clock\n");
> +
> + return PTR_ERR(dev->mod_clk);
> + }
> +
> + dev->ram_clk = devm_clk_get(dev->dev, "ram");
> + if (IS_ERR(dev->ram_clk)) {
> + dev_err(dev->dev, "Failed to get ram clock\n");
> +
> + return PTR_ERR(dev->ram_clk);
> + }
> +
> + dev->rstc = devm_reset_control_get(dev->dev, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(dev->rstc)) {
> + dev_err(dev->dev, "Failed to get reset control\n");
> +
> + return PTR_ERR(dev->rstc);
> + }
> +
> + clk_set_rate_exclusive(dev->mod_clk, 300000000);
clk_set_rate_exclusive puts a pretty big constraint on the clock tree,
and we shouldn't really enforce it if the device is unused.
I guess we should move it to the runtime_pm resume hook (with the
put_exclusive call in suspend).
Otherwise, that patch is
Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <[email protected]>
Maxime
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
