Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP: TI816X: add clock domain support for TI816x

[Aida Mynzhasova <aida.mynzhasova@skitlab.ru>]

On 18.09.2013 15:56, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 09/18/2013 04:40 AM, Aida Mynzhasova wrote:
>> On 16.09.2013 17:14, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 10:49-20130916, Aida Mynzhasova wrote:
>>>> On 24.08.2013 18:02, Aida Mynzhasova wrote:
>>>>> This patch adds required definitions and structures for clockdomain
>>>>> initialization, so omap3xxx_clockdomains_init() was substituted by
>>>>> new ti81xx_clockdomains_init() while early initialization of
>>>>> TI81XX platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> signed-off-by: Aida Mynzhasova <aida.mynzhasova@skitlab.ru>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile                   |   2 +
>>>>>    arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomain.h              |   1 +
>>>>>    arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomains_ti81xx_data.c | 208 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    arch/arm/mach-omap2/cm-regbits-ti81xx.h        |  22 +++
>>>>>    arch/arm/mach-omap2/cm_ti81xx.h                |  61 ++++++++
>>>>>    arch/arm/mach-omap2/io.c                       |   2 +-
>>>>>    6 files changed, 295 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>    create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomains_ti81xx_data.c
>>>>>    create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/cm-regbits-ti81xx.h
>>>>>    create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/cm_ti81xx.h
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> Can anybody please review my changes?
>>>
>>> We are transitioning out of having clock information in mach-omap2 to
>>> using devicetree
>>>
>>> http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=137778225431749&w=2
>>>
>>> Will be good to align the conversion with upcoming V7 of the patch
>>> series as well.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Nishanth,
>>
>> I'm sorry, but it seems like you mixed up clock and clock domain data.
>> The same situation was for Afzal's patch:
>>
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/104485
>>
> Yep - same darned mistake!!! my sincere apologies. I had mistaken
> Tero's series originally to mean it took care of the data, but
> realized later(after kicking myself twice for not digging deeper) that
> it was handling the relationship between clocks and clockdomains at
> this stage and potentially creates the foundation to move the data out
> as well at a later stage.
>
> My bad.. Apologies once again.
>

That's ok :)

So, is there is somebody who wants to review my changes? :)

Thanks!