Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Message-ID: <1b99abed-6572-4550-98cc-56667a507883@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 20:45:45 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] clk: qcom: ipq6018: add USB GDSCs
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
To:     Robert Marko <robimarko@gmail.com>, agross@kernel.org,
        andersson@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
        mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
References: <20231025104457.628109-1-robimarko@gmail.com>
 <20231025104457.628109-2-robimarko@gmail.com>
 <77314fe2-2936-4f89-a347-4eb288507c47@linaro.org>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <77314fe2-2936-4f89-a347-4eb288507c47@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 10/26/23 20:42, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/25/23 12:44, Robert Marko wrote:
>> IPQ6018 has GDSC-s for each of the USB ports, so lets define them as such
>> and drop the curent code that is de-asserting the USB GDSC-s as part of
>> the GCC probe.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robimarko@gmail.com>
>> ---
> Applying patches 1 and 3 without this one breaks usb, no?
Sorry, my hands don't keep up with my brain - that's almost another
speculative execution vulnerability!

What I meant to say is:

applying patches 1 and 2 breaks USB

but

the solution here would be to apply patch 1 and patch 3, followed
by patch 2 (unless it will make the USB defer, IDK, it's probably
easier to just test than to dive deep into the code)

with Bjorn taking both subsystems, we can make that work I think

Konrad