Messages in this thread |  | | From | Jerome Brunet <> | | 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 |
| |
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 ?
|  |