From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-it1-x141.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::141]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hVA3o-0006V1-N1 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 07:28:45 +0000 Received: by mail-it1-x141.google.com with SMTP id u186so22820992ith.0 for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 00:28:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190521155626.9906-1-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> <20190521155626.9906-2-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> In-Reply-To: From: Andrey Smirnov Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 00:28:32 -0700 Message-ID: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] clk: imx6: remove quirky clk_set_parent(LDB_diN_sel, pll5_video_div) To: Ahmad Fatoum Cc: Barebox List , Raphael Poggi , pza@pengutronix.de On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:23 AM Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > > Hello, > > On 27/5/19 08:50, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > > On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:29 PM Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > >> > >> Hello Andrey, > >> > >> On 26/5/19 23:55, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > >>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 8:56 AM Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > >>>> > >>> This particular patch does break a non 6Q+ version of RDU2, but the > >>> follow up ones in the series fix it, so it seems that no action is > >>> really necessary on my part. > >> > >> The reparenting removed in this patch isn't reinstated by the rest of the series. > >> They merely apply parentage expressed in the device tree in a glitch-free manner. > >> > >> As both barebox and kernel imx6qdl-zii-rdu2.dtsi lack the relevant > >> assigned-clock-parents snippet, I am not sure what it is this patch broke that the > >> follow-up ones fixed? > > > > Not sure, will investigate. > > Ok. > > > > >> > >> Generally, affected boards have been broken since day 1, because the LVDS output > >> would've locked up every blue moon or so. If this patch breaks them, they're just > >> more reliably broken. :-) > >> > > > > There's a world of difference between not working every once in a blue > > moon and not working from a first boot. > > Ye, the latter one can be dealt with on-the-spot. The other is much more costly to > fix. > Here's a different perspective: If you needed to make an urgent phone call, would you rather you phone didn't work every once in a blue moon or be broken for the get go? Thanks, Andrey Smirnov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox