On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 12:09:48 +0530
"J, KEERTHY" <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:

> On 1/19/2019 1:18 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info> [190118 19:42]:  
> >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 20:38:47 +0100
> >> Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info> wrote:
> >>  
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:36:30 -0800
> >>> Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]  
> >>>> til the next workaround.
> >>>>      
> >>>>> That flags also causes the iclk being enabled/disabled
> >>>>> manually.  
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes but SWSUP_IDLE for the interface clock to me currently
> >>>> just means:
> >>>>
> >>>> "manually enable and disable ocp interface clock"
> >>>>      
> >>> well, if we want to manually disable it and not automatically,
> >>> we have to disable autoidle or it will be automatically disabled.
> >>>
> >>> Disabling it manually when it is already auto-disabled (by autoidle) is
> >>> just practically a no-op towards the clock.
> >>>  
> >>>> and with your changes it becomes:
> >>>>
> >>>> "manually enable and disable ocp interface clock and block
> >>>>   autoidle while in use".
> >>>>
> >>>> So aren't we now changing the way things behave in general
> >>>> for SWSUP_IDLE?
> >>>>      
> >>> Yes, we are, so proper testing is needed. But If I read those comments
> >>> it was always intended this way but not fully implemented because it
> >>> appeared to be more work like needing a usecounter (which my patchset
> >>> also adds) for that autoidle flag.
> >>>  
> >> and there are quite few hwmods marked by this flag.
> >> And then there are those clocks marked by this flags (on am33xx) which
> >> do not have that autoidle feature at all, so the risk is not too high.  
> > 
> > Keerthy, can you please test this series on top of the
> > related clock patches with your am335x PM test cases?  
> 
> Can you point me to the clock series that needs to be tested
> along with this?
> 

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-clk/list/?series=66691

Regards,
Andreas