From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] clk: qcom: gdsc: Add support for gdscs with HW control Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:18:34 -0700 Message-ID: <20161102001834.GB16026@codeaurora.org> References: <1477304297-5248-1-git-send-email-sricharan@codeaurora.org> <1477304297-5248-2-git-send-email-sricharan@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:56768 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751802AbcKBASg (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:18:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1477304297-5248-2-git-send-email-sricharan@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Sricharan R Cc: mturquette@baylibre.com, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rnayak@codeaurora.org, stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org On 10/24, Sricharan R wrote: > @@ -164,6 +171,10 @@ static int gdsc_enable(struct generic_pm_domain *domain) > */ > udelay(1); > > + /* Turn on HW trigger mode if supported */ > + if (sc->flags & HW_CTRL) > + gdsc_hwctrl(sc, true); > + It sounds like this will cause glitches if the hardware isn't asserting their hw control bit by default? This has me concerned that we can't just throw the hw control enable part into here, because that bit doesn't live in the clock controller, instead it lives in the hw block that is powered by the power domain? Or does the power on reset value of that hw control signal asserted? If that's true then we should be ok to force it into hw control mode by default. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project