From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BB7C433DF for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F0052223C for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404004AbgJTJwM (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 05:52:12 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:48822 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731041AbgJTJwM (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 05:52:12 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47554101E; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 02:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (unknown [10.57.22.167]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3AB383F66E; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 02:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:52:05 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Viresh Kumar Cc: ulf.hansson@linaro.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Kevin Hilman , Pavel Machek , Len Brown , Sudeep Holla , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , Kukjin Kim , Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , nks@flawful.org, georgi.djakov@linaro.org, Stephan Gerhold , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] opp: Allow dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table() to return -EPROBE_DEFER Message-ID: <20201020095205.GB10604@bogus> References: <20201019045827.kl6qnx6gidhzjkrs@vireshk-i7> <20201019091723.GA12087@bogus> <20201019092411.b3znjxebay3puq2j@vireshk-i7> <20201019101241.GB12908@bogus> <20201019103535.ksp5ackoihamam4g@vireshk-i7> <20201019141007.GA6358@bogus> <20201020050557.a3b2nk33eeyxnvl2@vireshk-i7> <20201020055431.ln7d57x76f7z6j5k@vireshk-i7> <20201020093745.GA10604@bogus> <20201020094134.natqnyp4zpfw3p5p@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201020094134.natqnyp4zpfw3p5p@vireshk-i7> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 03:11:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 20-10-20, 10:37, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 11:24:32AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 20-10-20, 10:35, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > On 19-10-20, 15:10, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 04:05:35PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > > On 19-10-20, 11:12, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > > > Yes it has clocks property but used by SCMI(for CPUFreq/DevFreq) and not > > > > > > > by any clock provider driver. E.g. the issue you will see if "clocks" > > > > > > > property is used instead of "qcom,freq-domain" on Qcom parts. > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, I understand. But what I still don't understand is why it fails > > > > > > for you. You have a clocks property in DT for the CPU, the OPP core > > > > > > tries to get it and will get deferred-probed, which will try probing > > > > > > at a later point of time and it shall work then. Isn't it ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope unfortunately. We don't have clock provider, so clk_get will > > > > > never succeed and always return -EPROBE_DEFER. > > > > > > > > Now this is really bad, you have a fake clocks property, how is the > > > > OPP core supposed to know it ? Damn. > > > > > > What about instead of fixing the OPP core, which really is doing the > > > right thing, we fix your driver (as you can't fix the DT) and add a > > > dummy CPU clk to make it all work ? > > > > > > > I really would avoid that. I would rather change the binding as there is > > no single official users of that binding in the upstream tree. > > But how will you solve backward compatibility thing then ? > I am just betting on the fact that no users upstream means no backward compatibility needed. If someone raises issue we need to add backward compatibility with dummy clk as you suggested. -- Regards, Sudeep