[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 2/4] ipq40xx: fix sleep clock
sven at narfation.org
Thu May 16 03:05:05 PDT 2019
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
"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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the openwrt-devel