Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] clk: meson: a1: add support for Amlogic A1 clock driver

From: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
To: Jian Hu <jian.hu@amlogic.com>, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Victor Wan <victor.wan@amlogic.com>,
	Jianxin Pan <jianxin.pan@amlogic.com>,
	Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
	Qiufang Dai <qiufang.dai@amlogic.com>,
	Chandle Zou <chandle.zou@amlogic.com>,
	linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] clk: meson: a1: add support for Amlogic A1 clock driver
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:14:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1j7e3oqn36.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9e652ed1-384e-f630-f2a4-0aa4486df577@amlogic.com>

On Thu 21 Nov 2019 at 04:21, Jian Hu <jian.hu@amlogic.com> wrote:

> Hi, Jerome
>
> On 2019/11/20 23:35, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>>
>> On Wed 20 Nov 2019 at 10:28, Jian Hu <jian.hu@amlogic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, jerome
>>>
>>> Is there any problem about fixed_pll_dco's parent_data?
>>>
>>> Now both name and fw_name are described in parent_data.
>>
>> Yes, there is a problem.  This approach is incorrect, as I've tried to
>> explain a couple times already. Let me try to re-summarize why this
>> approach is incorrect.
>>
>> Both fw_name and name should be provided when it is possible that
>> the DT does not describe the input clock. IOW, it is only for controllers
>> which relied on the global name so far and are now starting to describe
>> the clock input in DT
>>
>> This is not your case.
>> Your controller is new and DT will have the correct
>> info
>>
>> You are trying work around an ordering issue by providing both fw_name
>> and name. This is not correct and I'll continue to nack it.
>>
>> If the orphan clock is not reparented as you would expect, I suggest you
>> try to look a bit further at how the reparenting of orphans is done in
>> CCF and why it does not match your expectation.
>>
> I have debugged the handle for orphan clock in CCF, Maybe you are missing
> the last email.

Nope, got it the first time

> Even though the clock index exit, it will get failed for the orphan clock's
> parent clock due to it has not beed added to the provider.

If the provider is not registered yet, of course any query to it won't
work. This why I have suggested to this debug *further* :

* Is the orphan reparenting done when a new provider is registered ?
* If not, should it be done ? is this your problem ?

_______________________________________________
linux-amlogic mailing list
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic