[PATCH 4/4] ARM: imx: clk-imx6q: correct some clocks' initial enable_count

[b20788@freescale.com (Anson Huang)]

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:44:23PM +0200, Dirk Behme wrote:
> On 31.05.2013 23:01, Anson Huang wrote:
> >Those always-on clocks need to be added into init_on array, this
> >is to avoid confusion when we dump the clock tree, the result
> >shows that some clocks are on but their enabled_count is 0.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Anson Huang <b20788@freescale.com>
> >---
> >  arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx6q.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx6q.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx6q.c
> >index 390950e..66831a6 100644
> >--- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx6q.c
> >+++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx6q.c
> >@@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ static struct clk *clk[clk_max];
> >  static struct clk_onecell_data clk_data;
> >
> >  static enum mx6q_clks const clks_init_on[] __initconst = {
> >-	mmdc_ch0_axi, rom, pll1_sys,
> >+	mmdc_ch0_axi, rom, pll1_sys, ckil, ocram, axi, ipg_per, mx6fast1, per2_main, aips_tz1, aips_tz2, mmdc_ch0_ipg, mmdc_ch1_ipg,
> 
> 
> All clocks added with patch 1/4 but not listed here will be disabled
> by the kernel, then? Is this intended? I just ask because it might
> change the boards behavior in case the boot loader touches one of
> the clocks from 1/4 and now they are disabled by the kernel.
> 
Yes, I think we should only add those necessary clocks during kernel
boot up, other clocks will be disabled by clk framework automatically,
and modules need to enable those clocks they need before active.
> Best regards
> 
> Dirk
> 
>