| Message ID | 1368124502-18830-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 11:35 Thu 09 May , Saravana Kannan wrote: > With deferred probing, late_initcall() is too soon to declare a clock as > unused. Wait for deferred probing to finish before declaring a clock as > unused. Since deferred probing is done in late_initcall(), do the unused > check to late_initcall_sync. Nack for both regulator & clk you can not known when the clock need to be shutdown example display splash screen set by the bootloader and display as module Best Regards, J. > > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> > --- > drivers/clk/clk.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c > index fe4055f..5ecb64c 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c > @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int clk_disable_unused(void) > > return 0; > } > -late_initcall(clk_disable_unused); > +late_initcall_sync(clk_disable_unused); > > /*** helper functions ***/ > > -- > 1.7.8.3 > > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, > hosted by The Linux Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On 05/09/2013 11:45 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 11:35 Thu 09 May , Saravana Kannan wrote: >> With deferred probing, late_initcall() is too soon to declare a clock as >> unused. Wait for deferred probing to finish before declaring a clock as >> unused. Since deferred probing is done in late_initcall(), do the unused >> check to late_initcall_sync. > > Nack for both regulator & clk > > you can not known when the clock need to be shutdown > > example display splash screen set by the bootloader and display as module > > Best Regards, > J. You are joking right? This is already done in the kernel. If you don't want that, please rip out the code and try to get that picked up. I'm sending out this patch for fix what's currently in the kernel for those who care for the current feature. Regards, Saravana
On 05/09/2013 11:35 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > With deferred probing, late_initcall() is too soon to declare a clock as > unused. Wait for deferred probing to finish before declaring a clock as > unused. Since deferred probing is done in late_initcall(), do the unused > check to late_initcall_sync. > > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> > --- > drivers/clk/clk.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c > index fe4055f..5ecb64c 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c > @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int clk_disable_unused(void) > > return 0; > } > -late_initcall(clk_disable_unused); > +late_initcall_sync(clk_disable_unused); > > /*** helper functions ***/ Mike, Thoughts? Picking it up? Removing the existing auto-disable code (I think they are still useful)? -Saravana
On 16 May 2013 06:34, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 05/09/2013 11:35 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >> >> With deferred probing, late_initcall() is too soon to declare a clock as >> unused. Wait for deferred probing to finish before declaring a clock as >> unused. Since deferred probing is done in late_initcall(), do the unused >> check to late_initcall_sync. >> >> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> >> --- >> drivers/clk/clk.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c >> index fe4055f..5ecb64c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c >> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c >> @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int clk_disable_unused(void) >> >> return 0; >> } >> -late_initcall(clk_disable_unused); >> +late_initcall_sync(clk_disable_unused); Without giving this too much thinking... Will boot time be affected with this change? Kind regards Ulf Hansson >> >> /*** helper functions ***/ > > > Mike, > > Thoughts? Picking it up? Removing the existing auto-disable code (I think > they are still useful)? > > -Saravana > > > -- > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, > hosted by The Linux Foundation > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On 05/16/2013 05:55 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 16 May 2013 06:34, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> On 05/09/2013 11:35 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >>> >>> With deferred probing, late_initcall() is too soon to declare a clock as >>> unused. Wait for deferred probing to finish before declaring a clock as >>> unused. Since deferred probing is done in late_initcall(), do the unused >>> check to late_initcall_sync. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> >>> --- >>> drivers/clk/clk.c | 2 +- >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c >>> index fe4055f..5ecb64c 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c >>> @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int clk_disable_unused(void) >>> >>> return 0; >>> } >>> -late_initcall(clk_disable_unused); >>> +late_initcall_sync(clk_disable_unused); > > Without giving this too much thinking... Will boot time be affected > with this change? > No, we are just reordering the steps. -Saravana
On 16:03 Fri 10 May , Saravana Kannan wrote: > On 05/09/2013 11:45 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > >On 11:35 Thu 09 May , Saravana Kannan wrote: > >>With deferred probing, late_initcall() is too soon to declare a clock as > >>unused. Wait for deferred probing to finish before declaring a clock as > >>unused. Since deferred probing is done in late_initcall(), do the unused > >>check to late_initcall_sync. > > > >Nack for both regulator & clk > > > >you can not known when the clock need to be shutdown > > > >example display splash screen set by the bootloader and display as module > > > >Best Regards, > >J. > > You are joking right? This is already done in the kernel. If you > don't want that, please rip out the code and try to get that picked > up. I'm sending out this patch for fix what's currently in the > kernel for those who care for the current feature. so this feature is nightmare we need to KILL it Best Regards, J. > > Regards, > Saravana > > > -- > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, > hosted by The Linux Foundation
Quoting Saravana Kannan (2013-05-15 21:34:03) > On 05/09/2013 11:35 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > With deferred probing, late_initcall() is too soon to declare a clock as > > unused. Wait for deferred probing to finish before declaring a clock as > > unused. Since deferred probing is done in late_initcall(), do the unused > > check to late_initcall_sync. > > > > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> > > --- > > drivers/clk/clk.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c > > index fe4055f..5ecb64c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c > > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c > > @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int clk_disable_unused(void) > > > > return 0; > > } > > -late_initcall(clk_disable_unused); > > +late_initcall_sync(clk_disable_unused); > > > > /*** helper functions ***/ > > Mike, > > Thoughts? Picking it up? Removing the existing auto-disable code (I > think they are still useful)? > Hi Saravana, I've taken this into clk-next for testing. Regards, Mike > -Saravana > > > -- > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, > hosted by The Linux Foundation
On 05/29/2013 12:51 AM, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Saravana Kannan (2013-05-15 21:34:03) >> On 05/09/2013 11:35 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >>> With deferred probing, late_initcall() is too soon to declare a clock as >>> unused. Wait for deferred probing to finish before declaring a clock as >>> unused. Since deferred probing is done in late_initcall(), do the unused >>> check to late_initcall_sync. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> >>> --- >>> drivers/clk/clk.c | 2 +- >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c >>> index fe4055f..5ecb64c 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c >>> @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int clk_disable_unused(void) >>> >>> return 0; >>> } >>> -late_initcall(clk_disable_unused); >>> +late_initcall_sync(clk_disable_unused); >>> >>> /*** helper functions ***/ >> >> Mike, >> >> Thoughts? Picking it up? Removing the existing auto-disable code (I >> think they are still useful)? >> > > Hi Saravana, > > I've taken this into clk-next for testing. > > Regards, > Mike > Thanks. -Saravana
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c index fe4055f..5ecb64c 100644 --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int clk_disable_unused(void) return 0; } -late_initcall(clk_disable_unused); +late_initcall_sync(clk_disable_unused); /*** helper functions ***/
With deferred probing, late_initcall() is too soon to declare a clock as unused. Wait for deferred probing to finish before declaring a clock as unused. Since deferred probing is done in late_initcall(), do the unused check to late_initcall_sync. Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> --- drivers/clk/clk.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)