On 04/05/2026 13:07, Neha Malcom Francis wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 14:56:10 +0530, Balaji Selvanathan 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> index dc40ee62daf..ae33f62fbee 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> @@ -557,10 +547,45 @@ static void ufs_qcom_dev_ref_clk_ctrl(struct ufs_hba 
>> *hba, bool enable)
>> [ ... skip 20 lines ... ]
>> +
>> +    rate = clk_set_rate(&clk, max_freq);
>> +    if (rate < 0) {
>> +            dev_err(dev, "Failed to set core_clk_unipro rate to %u Hz: 
>> %ld\n",
>> +                    max_freq, rate);
>> +    }
> 
> Was it intentional to proceed with init despite core clock set_rate failure?

I think for now it's kept because some platform clock drivers don't
properly support this clock since it's often already configured
properly. If it is required then the error still provides a useful
pointer and the driver will fail later on.

> 

-- 
// Casey (she/her)

Reply via email to