From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robert.jarzmik@free.fr (Robert Jarzmik) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:29:07 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3 0/4] clk: st: New always-on clock domain In-Reply-To: <20150302083019.GD31325@x1> (Lee Jones's message of "Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:30:19 +0000") References: <1424799222-9301-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <87385r3uk9.fsf@free.fr> <20150227214941.GB12821@x1> <87sidq3ox8.fsf@free.fr> <20150302083019.GD31325@x1> Message-ID: <87vbij1vuk.fsf@free.fr> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Lee Jones writes: > On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > >> Lee Jones writes: >> it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it >> says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to >> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied. > > Well that is exactly what we're doing. Is there an issue with that? > > This is a way to do it at a platform level. It means we can support > multiple platforms where clocksources have been switched around > without writing new driver code in drivers/clk/st. > > If you have something else in mind, let me know. > >> 2) I still fail to see why this is necessary >> IOW why declaring the mandatory always-on clocks with the proper flag should >> be augmented with a new clock list. Isn't the existing flag the generic way >> ? > > I'm not sure what you mean by this, would you be able to expland a > little? > >> I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, that's why I'm >> asking. > > Please bear in mind that we don't supply our clocks statically. All > of the information is extracted from DT, so if the always-on > information does reside in there, where do you propose it comes from? I thought the standard clock binding provided a way to set this flag. Now I crosschecked the binding, it doesn't ... My point was I didn't want the flag to be settable from 2 different places, where consistency was to be kept across different device-tree leafs. > We could just write this code inside our own driver and apply the > CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED at a local level, but that's not the generic > solution I am searching for. All right, I'm convinced now I undertand the flag was not settable from devicetree binding before this patchset. You can add to patch 3/4 : Reviewed-by: Robert Jarzmik -- Robert From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Jarzmik Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] clk: st: New always-on clock domain Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:29:07 +0100 Message-ID: <87vbij1vuk.fsf@free.fr> References: <1424799222-9301-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <87385r3uk9.fsf@free.fr> <20150227214941.GB12821@x1> <87sidq3ox8.fsf@free.fr> <20150302083019.GD31325@x1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150302083019.GD31325@x1> (Lee Jones's message of "Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:30:19 +0000") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Jones Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mturquette@linaro.org, sboyd@codeaurora.org, kernel@stlinux.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Lee Jones writes: > On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > >> Lee Jones writes: >> it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it >> says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to >> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied. > > Well that is exactly what we're doing. Is there an issue with that? > > This is a way to do it at a platform level. It means we can support > multiple platforms where clocksources have been switched around > without writing new driver code in drivers/clk/st. > > If you have something else in mind, let me know. > >> 2) I still fail to see why this is necessary >> IOW why declaring the mandatory always-on clocks with the proper flag should >> be augmented with a new clock list. Isn't the existing flag the generic way >> ? > > I'm not sure what you mean by this, would you be able to expland a > little? > >> I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, that's why I'm >> asking. > > Please bear in mind that we don't supply our clocks statically. All > of the information is extracted from DT, so if the always-on > information does reside in there, where do you propose it comes from? I thought the standard clock binding provided a way to set this flag. Now I crosschecked the binding, it doesn't ... My point was I didn't want the flag to be settable from 2 different places, where consistency was to be kept across different device-tree leafs. > We could just write this code inside our own driver and apply the > CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED at a local level, but that's not the generic > solution I am searching for. All right, I'm convinced now I undertand the flag was not settable from devicetree binding before this patchset. You can add to patch 3/4 : Reviewed-by: Robert Jarzmik -- Robert