From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tero Kristo Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 06/49] clk: add support for low level register ops Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:44:56 +0200 Message-ID: <52CBB078.7000607@ti.com> References: <1387557274-22583-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <1387557274-22583-6-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <20131222173926.GB8064@book.gsilab.sittig.org> <52C67F53.6000402@ti.com> <52C7141F.2020901@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:60240 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754662AbaAGHpe (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 02:45:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <52C7141F.2020901@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, paul@pwsan.com, tony@atomide.com, nm@ti.com, rnayak@ti.com, bcousson@baylibre.com, mturquette@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Anatolij Gustschin On 01/03/2014 09:48 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 01/03/14 01:13, Tero Kristo wrote: >> On 12/22/2013 07:39 PM, Gerhard Sittig wrote: >>> >>> >>> Further I'd suggest to split this register access aspect out of >>> the TI clock series, and to prepare it already for regmap style >>> access to the hardware registers. See the next comment below. >> >> This sounds like a good idea to me, seeing it is blocking lots of >> other things. > > This ll_ops struct looks like a simplified regmap. Have you seen my > series that adds regmap support to the common clock framework[1]? Is > there any reason why you can't use those patches and layer some patches > on top to add support for regmap to the basic clock types? > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/23/461 Yea I've seen that. I also used regmap myself on some earlier rev, but it is rather an overkill solution to my purposes, and it also adds additional latencies to the register access. -Tero From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: t-kristo@ti.com (Tero Kristo) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:44:56 +0200 Subject: [PATCHv12 06/49] clk: add support for low level register ops In-Reply-To: <52C7141F.2020901@codeaurora.org> References: <1387557274-22583-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <1387557274-22583-6-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <20131222173926.GB8064@book.gsilab.sittig.org> <52C67F53.6000402@ti.com> <52C7141F.2020901@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <52CBB078.7000607@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/03/2014 09:48 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 01/03/14 01:13, Tero Kristo wrote: >> On 12/22/2013 07:39 PM, Gerhard Sittig wrote: >>> >>> >>> Further I'd suggest to split this register access aspect out of >>> the TI clock series, and to prepare it already for regmap style >>> access to the hardware registers. See the next comment below. >> >> This sounds like a good idea to me, seeing it is blocking lots of >> other things. > > This ll_ops struct looks like a simplified regmap. Have you seen my > series that adds regmap support to the common clock framework[1]? Is > there any reason why you can't use those patches and layer some patches > on top to add support for regmap to the basic clock types? > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/23/461 Yea I've seen that. I also used regmap myself on some earlier rev, but it is rather an overkill solution to my purposes, and it also adds additional latencies to the register access. -Tero