Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:20:54 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] clk: qcom: gcc-sm6375: Unregister critical clocks
Message-ID: <ZLaRtrH85v4kpSvb@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20230717-topic-branch_aon_cleanup-v1-0-27784d27a4f4@linaro.org>
 <20230717-topic-branch_aon_cleanup-v1-3-27784d27a4f4@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230717-topic-branch_aon_cleanup-v1-3-27784d27a4f4@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 05:19:10PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> Some clocks need to be always-on, but we don't really do anything
> with them, other than calling enable() once and telling Linux they're
> enabled.
> 
> Unregister them to save a couple of bytes and, perhaps more
> importantly, allow for runtime suspend of the clock controller device,
> as CLK_IS_CRITICAL prevents the latter.

But this doesn't sound right. How can you disable a controller which
still has clocks enabled?

Shouldn't instead these clocks be modelled properly so that they are
only enabled when actually needed?

Johan