Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: exynos4: Add alias for cpufreq related clocks

[Tushar Behera <tushar.behera-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

On 06/11/2013 12:23 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Monday 10 of June 2013 09:13:11 Tushar Behera wrote:
>> On 06/08/2013 05:20 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> On Thursday 06 of June 2013 16:52:28 Tushar Behera wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>>  	MUX_A(mout_core, "mout_core", mout_core_p4210,
>>>>
>>>> -			SRC_CPU, 16, 1, "mout_core"),
>>>> +			SRC_CPU, 16, 1, "moutcore"),
>>>
>>> IMHO those typo corrections are not part of this patch.
>>
>> But the older drivers (before migration to CCF) were using the clock
>> "moutcore" (not "mout_core").
> 
> I mean, this should be placed in a separate patch, as this change is not 
> "adding alias for cpufreq related clocks", but rather fixing a typo.
> 

Is it ok if I split this patch into 2, one adding clock alias
'mout_apll' and another one fixing the alias names 'mout_mpll',
'moutcore' and 'armclk'?

[ ... ]

>>> Basically I don't like the idea of those global aliases, which IMHO
>>> should be completely dropped. Someone might not like it, but I'd go
>>> with the conversion of our cpufreq drivers to platform drivers
>>> instead, which could receive things like clocks and regulators using
>>> DT-based lookups.
>> I agree. Migration of exynos-cpufreq driver as a platform driver is the
>> best solution. But unless someone picks up that work, cpufreq support
>> for EXYNOS4 based systems is broken because of the incorrect clock
>> aliases.
> 
> We have patches for this in our internal tree. I will clean them up a bit 
> and submit soon.
> 

If you are going to submit the cpufreq driver patches for v3.11, then we
can ignore this patchset. Otherwise, I would prefer to get these patches
merged for v3.11 to get cpufreq working. Once the driver changes are
incorporated, we can very well modify these later.

Thanks.
-- 
Tushar Behera