On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:23:01 +0200
Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> wrote:

> On 28/12/2018 22:02, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info> [181227 20:13]:  
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 08:45:57 -0800
> >> Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> >>  
> >>> * Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info> [181204 06:17]:  
> >>>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 07:39:10 -0800
> >>>> Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:  
> >>>>> The consumer device stays active just fine with PM runtime
> >>>>> calls. So yes, the problem is keeping a clock controller forced
> >>>>> active for the period of consumer device reset. Other than
> >>>>> that typically autoidle can be just kept enabled.
> >>>>>      
> >>>> Are we still talking about the same problem? Maybe I am losing track
> >>>> here. Just to make sure.
> >>>> The patch series was about disabling autoidle for devices which cannot
> >>>> work with it during normal operation. Not during reset or something
> >>>> like that.
> >>>> Or is the keep-clock-active-during-reset just a requirement for bigger
> >>>> restructuring ideas?  
> >>>
> >>> Yeah there are two issues: The fix needed for the issue you brought up,
> >>> and also how to let a reset driver to block autoidle for reset.
> >>>  
> >> Hmm, is this set now waiting for the famous "somebody" fixing all
> >> the stuff?  
> > 
> > Well I think we're still waiting on Tero to comment on this.  
> 
> The only item requiring immediate fixing is the point Stephen made out, 
> removing the usage of CLK_IS_BASIC from this patch.
> 
> Afaics, the reset related concerns Tony has can be handled later.
> 
hmm, and there we need Stephen's opinion about having the allow/deny
autoidle functions in the main clk_ops struct.

Regards,
Andreas