From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
Markus Mayer <markus.mayer@broadcom.com>,
Markus Mayer <code@mmayer.net>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Broadcom Kernel List <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
Linux Clock List <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
Power Management List <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Device Tree List <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: brcm: clocks: add binding for brcmstb-cpu-clk-div
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:04:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170207010426.GO25384@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a1a11072-908b-352e-a49f-49240d430df9@broadcom.com>
On 02/06, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 02/06/2017 02:59 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 02/03, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >>
> >> We already have another piece of drive code that manipulates registers
> >> in the Bus Interface Unit located in drivers/soc/bcm/brcmstb/biuctrl.c
> >> and which has little to nothing to do with the CPU's clock ratio. And
> >> actually another one being submitted that deals with the CPU's
> >> read-ahead cache. I would very much prefer we keep all of them separate
> >> and dealing with just the register offset they need to do, but that does
> >> not mean the Device Tree binding has to look that way though.
> >>
> >> The binding for the BIUCTRL register made it here:
> >>
> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,brcmstb.txt
> >>
> >> so we should re-use that, and have a small piece of clock provided that
> >> just uses the relevant register range within that larger register space
> >> and provide the CLOCK_RATIO. Does that work?
> >>
> >
> > Ok. That's fine. The existing binding will be updated to include
> > this new subnode then for the clock component?
>
> Humm, I suppose we could do that yes, my original thought was to just
> have this CPU clock provider remap the entire BIUCTRL register range
> (of_iomap() etc.) and manipulate just the relevant register range of
> interest (CPU_CLOCK_CONFIG_REG), but if you want a sub-node to appear,
> we could probably do that as well.
One node is fine as well. I thought the plan was many subnodes
based on the binding document you mentioned earlier.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: brcm: clocks: add binding for brcmstb-cpu-clk-div
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:04:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170207010426.GO25384@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a1a11072-908b-352e-a49f-49240d430df9@broadcom.com>
On 02/06, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 02/06/2017 02:59 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 02/03, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >>
> >> We already have another piece of drive code that manipulates registers
> >> in the Bus Interface Unit located in drivers/soc/bcm/brcmstb/biuctrl.c
> >> and which has little to nothing to do with the CPU's clock ratio. And
> >> actually another one being submitted that deals with the CPU's
> >> read-ahead cache. I would very much prefer we keep all of them separate
> >> and dealing with just the register offset they need to do, but that does
> >> not mean the Device Tree binding has to look that way though.
> >>
> >> The binding for the BIUCTRL register made it here:
> >>
> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,brcmstb.txt
> >>
> >> so we should re-use that, and have a small piece of clock provided that
> >> just uses the relevant register range within that larger register space
> >> and provide the CLOCK_RATIO. Does that work?
> >>
> >
> > Ok. That's fine. The existing binding will be updated to include
> > this new subnode then for the clock component?
>
> Humm, I suppose we could do that yes, my original thought was to just
> have this CPU clock provider remap the entire BIUCTRL register range
> (of_iomap() etc.) and manipulate just the relevant register range of
> interest (CPU_CLOCK_CONFIG_REG), but if you want a sub-node to appear,
> we could probably do that as well.
One node is fine as well. I thought the plan was many subnodes
based on the binding document you mentioned earlier.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-07 1:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-19 0:29 [PATCH v5 0/2] cpufreq: brcmstb-cpufreq: CPUfreq driver for older Broadcom STB SoCs Markus Mayer
2017-01-19 0:29 ` Markus Mayer
2017-01-19 0:29 ` Markus Mayer
2017-01-19 0:29 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: brcm: clocks: add binding for brcmstb-cpu-clk-div Markus Mayer
2017-01-19 0:29 ` Markus Mayer
2017-01-19 0:29 ` Markus Mayer
2017-01-21 0:52 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-01-21 0:52 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-01-21 0:52 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-02-01 19:50 ` Markus Mayer
2017-02-01 19:50 ` Markus Mayer
2017-02-01 19:50 ` Markus Mayer
2017-02-03 20:06 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-02-03 20:06 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-02-03 20:35 ` Florian Fainelli
2017-02-03 20:35 ` Florian Fainelli
2017-02-06 22:59 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-02-06 22:59 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-02-06 23:16 ` Florian Fainelli
2017-02-06 23:16 ` Florian Fainelli
2017-02-07 1:04 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2017-02-07 1:04 ` Stephen Boyd
2017-01-21 20:39 ` Rob Herring
2017-01-21 20:39 ` Rob Herring
2017-01-21 20:39 ` Rob Herring
2017-01-19 0:29 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] cpufreq: brcmstb-cpufreq: CPUfreq driver for older Broadcom STB SoCs Markus Mayer
2017-01-19 0:29 ` Markus Mayer
2017-01-19 0:29 ` Markus Mayer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170207010426.GO25384@codeaurora.org \
--to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \
--cc=code@mmayer.net \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=florian.fainelli@broadcom.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=markus.mayer@broadcom.com \
--cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.