[PATCH 3/3] clk: imx6: Fix procedure to switch the parent of LDB_DI_CLK

[Stephen Boyd]

On 09/23, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam at nxp.com> wrote:
> > Due to incorrect placement of the clock gate cell in the ldb_di[x]_clk
> > tree, the glitchy parent mux of ldb_di[x]_clk can cause a glitch to
> > enter the ldb_di_ipu_div divider. If the divider gets locked up, no
> > ldb_di[x]_clk is generated, and the LVDS display will hang when the
> > ipu_di_clk is sourced from ldb_di_clk.
> >
> > To fix the problem, both the new and current parent of the ldb_di_clk
> > should be disabled before the switch. This patch ensures that correct
> > steps are followed when ldb_di_clk parent is switched in the beginning
> > of boot. The glitchy muxes are then registered as read-only. The clock
> > parent can be selected using the assigned-clocks and
> > assigned-clock-parents properties of the ccm device tree node:
> >
> >         &clks {
> >                 assigned-clocks = <&clks IMX6QDL_CLK_LDB_DI0_SEL>,
> >                                   <&clks IMX6QDL_CLK_LDB_DI1_SEL>;
> >                 assigned-clock-parents = <&clks IMX6QDL_CLK_MMDC_CH1_AXI>,
> >                                          <&clks IMX6QDL_CLK_PLL5_VIDEO_DIV>;
> >         };
> >
> > The issue is explained in detail in EB821 ("LDB Clock Switch Procedure &
> > i.MX6 Asynchronous Clock Switching Guidelines") [1].
> >
> > [1] http://www.nxp.com/files/32bit/doc/eng_bulletin/EB821.pdf
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ranjani Vaidyanathan <Ranjani.Vaidyanathan at nxp.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam at nxp.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel at pengutronix.de>
> > Reviewed-by: Akshay Bhat <akshay.bhat at timesys.com>
> > Tested-by Joshua Clayton <stillcompiling at gmail.com>
> > Tested-by: Charles Kang <Charles.Kang at advantech.com.tw>
> > Acked-by: Shawn Guo <shawnguo at kernel.org>
> 
> Do you think this one could be applied to clk-next? It fixes an
> important LVDS bug.
> 

Urgh, sorry I missed this one and then we got too close to the
merge window to keep applying things and I was traveling for a
bit. Is this a bug that's urgent and needs to be fixed to keep
these boards working in the v4.9-rc series? Does it need to go
back to stable? The change is fairly large, so we might be able
to put it into clk-fixes for -rc2, but it would need some
justification and preferably a stable/fixes tag.

Also, what about the other two patches in this series?

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project