[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 2/4] ipq40xx: fix sleep clock

[Павел]

чт, 16 мая 2019 г., 13:05 Sven Eckelmann <sven at narfation.org>:

> On Wednesday, 15 May 2019 19:16:51 CEST Павел wrote:
> [...]
> > > Is there any particular reason why
> > > this
> > > shouldn't be sent upstream and then backported to OpenWrt?
> > >
> >
> > There are no reasons why it shouldn't be sent upstream along with other
> > patches. I hope to find someone with datasheet beforehand to verify the
> > correct sleep clock rate.
>
> But you will most likely find the persons with the datasheet when you try
> to
> upstream it via
>
> * Andy Gross <agross at kernel.org> (maintainer:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT)
> * David Brown <david.brown at linaro.org> (maintainer:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT)
> * linux-arm-msm at vger.kernel.org (open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT)
>
> And maybe some of these guys also know how to find the ipq40xx clock
> controller reference or hardware reference. Because I was only able to
> verify
> for IPQ8072 that it had a 32.768 KHz sleep clock. But the
>

If you are completely sure about that, then I guess that they have
(un)intentionally messed with the clock in QSDK, because they state that
ipq807x has the same 32000 khz crystal.
https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/qsdk/oss/kernel/linux-msm/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcom-ipq807x-soc.dtsi?h=eggplant#n2055

Furthermore, it has been upstreamed...

So I'm confused actually what path to choose now. Probably it depends on
your level of confidence that ipq8072 definitely has a 32.768 khz rate - it
will mean that qsdk is not trustworthy on this matter.


"IPQ4018/IPQ4028/IPQ4019/IPQ4029 Watchdog" document states that the
> watchdog
> runs on a 32 KHz sleep clock. And according to the device tree, the clock
> you
> modified here is connected to the watchdog.
>
> And for the device tree bindings:
>
> * devicetree at vger.kernel.org (open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED
> DEVICE TREE BINDINGS)
> * Rob Herring <robh+dt at kernel.org> (maintainer:OPEN FIRMWARE AND
> FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS)
> * Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> (maintainer:OPEN FIRMWARE AND
> FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS)
>
> > Besides upstreaming a patch takes time while the next openwrt release
> > should be out soon I suppose.
>
> Good reason to try to upstream it at the same time to OpenWrt and upstream
> :)
> At least then we could get some feedback from upstream before OpenWrt
> ships
> something which potentially has negative effects.
>
> Kind regards,
>         Sven
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/attachments/20190516/463c063f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel