Hi Lukasz,
On 12/8/19 3:52 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 18:44:33 +0100 Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com wrote:
This driver assumes that lpuart clock is already enabled before probing but using DM only lpuart won't be automatically enabled so add clk_enable() when probing if CONFIG_CLK is defined.
Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com
drivers/serial/serial_lpuart.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/serial/serial_lpuart.c b/drivers/serial/serial_lpuart.c index 4b0a964d1b..52bd2baf7d 100644 --- a/drivers/serial/serial_lpuart.c +++ b/drivers/serial/serial_lpuart.c @@ -483,6 +483,19 @@ static int lpuart_serial_pending(struct udevice *dev, bool input) static int lpuart_serial_probe(struct udevice *dev) { +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(CLK)
- struct clk per_clk;
- int ret;
- ret = clk_get_by_name(dev, "per", &per_clk);
- if (ret) {
dev_err(dev, "Failed to get per clk: %d\n", ret);return ret;- }
- clk_enable(&per_clk);
+#endif
I think that this change will _silently_ break all boards which do have CONFIG_CLK enabled (for some clocks/drivers), but did not yet provided CCF definition for lpuart clock.
Oops, yes, you're totally right. Would it be correct if I try to retrieve clock and otherwise I fallback sending warnings like following?:
` static int lpuart_serial_probe(struct udevice *dev) { #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(CLK) struct clk per_clk; int ret;
ret = clk_get_by_name(dev, "per", &per_clk); if (!ret) { ret = clk_enable(&per_clk); if (ret) { dev_err(dev, "Failed to get per clk: %d\n", ret); return; } } else { dev_warn(dev, "Failed to get per clk: %d\n", ret); } #endif
....
`
Best regards