Hi,

I have a small comment that can definitely be addressed in a subsequent patch

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:28:06PM +0200, Jernej Skrabec wrote:
> +	dev->bus_clk = devm_clk_get(dev->dev, "bus");
> +	if (IS_ERR(dev->bus_clk)) {
> +		dev_err(dev->dev, "Failed to get bus clock\n");
> +
> +		return PTR_ERR(dev->bus_clk);
> +	}
> +
> +	dev->mod_clk = devm_clk_get(dev->dev, "mod");
> +	if (IS_ERR(dev->mod_clk)) {
> +		dev_err(dev->dev, "Failed to get mod clock\n");
> +
> +		return PTR_ERR(dev->mod_clk);
> +	}
> +
> +	dev->ram_clk = devm_clk_get(dev->dev, "ram");
> +	if (IS_ERR(dev->ram_clk)) {
> +		dev_err(dev->dev, "Failed to get ram clock\n");
> +
> +		return PTR_ERR(dev->ram_clk);
> +	}
> +
> +	dev->rstc = devm_reset_control_get(dev->dev, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(dev->rstc)) {
> +		dev_err(dev->dev, "Failed to get reset control\n");
> +
> +		return PTR_ERR(dev->rstc);
> +	}
> +
> +	clk_set_rate_exclusive(dev->mod_clk, 300000000);

clk_set_rate_exclusive puts a pretty big constraint on the clock tree,
and we shouldn't really enforce it if the device is unused.

I guess we should move it to the runtime_pm resume hook (with the
put_exclusive call in suspend).

Otherwise, that patch is
Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>

Maxime