Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm: shmobile: r7s72100: add i2c clocks

[Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1202 bytes --]


On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:53:45PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 18-12-2013 15:43, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> >>>@@ -173,6 +179,10 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] = {
> >>>  	CLKDEV_CON_ID("mtu2_fck", &mstp_clks[MSTP33]),
> 
> >>>  	/* ICK */
> >>>+	CLKDEV_DEV_ID("fcfee000.i2c", &mstp_clks[MSTP97]),
> >>>+	CLKDEV_DEV_ID("fcfee400.i2c", &mstp_clks[MSTP96]),
> >>>+	CLKDEV_DEV_ID("fcfee800.i2c", &mstp_clks[MSTP95]),
> >>>+	CLKDEV_DEV_ID("fcfeec00.i2c", &mstp_clks[MSTP94]),
> 
> >>    These belong to some other place, the group marked by /* ICK */
> >>is only for CLKDEV_ICK_ID().
> 
> >So, I'll create a /* DEV */ prefix?
> 
>    I really don't know. Other places have /* MSTP */ comment in this
> case despite all clocks, CLKDEV_DEV_ID() and CLKDEV_ICK_ID() are
> really MSTP clocks. I considered the idea of separating
> CLKDEV_ICK_ID() under /* ICK */ comment silly from the very start
> but Simon didn't listen to me.

I am puzzled, too. ICK is a type of registration and not a clock domain.
Also, there is 'mtu2_fck' which is under ICK as well as MSTP? Looks
wrong. From what I understand now, removing the /* ICK */ comment would
be easiest and proper?


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]