From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:23:28 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] ARM: dts: Device tree for AXM55xx. In-Reply-To: <20140415152047.GB32285@swsaberg01> References: <8344066.GP0Bf5lvlE@wuerfel> <20140415152047.GB32285@swsaberg01> Message-ID: <11327885.Oem0QkHdqf@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tuesday 15 April 2014 17:20:47 Anders Berg wrote: > > > + gpio0: gpio at 2010092000 { > > > + #gpio-cells = <2>; > > > + compatible = "arm,pl061", "arm,primecell"; > > > + gpio-controller; > > > + reg = <0x20 0x10092000 0x00 0x1000>; > > > + interrupts = , > > > + , > > > + , > > > + , > > > + , > > > + , > > > + , > > > + ; > > > + clocks = <&clk_per>; > > > + clock-names = "apb_pclk"; > > > + status = "disabled"; > > > > The pl061 binding does not specify any clocks at all. Do we need to update > > that? > > Doesn't all AMBA devices need at least one apb_pclk since the bus driver does > clk_get(...,"apb_pclk") before calling probe()? Yes, I was mostly wondering whether we had a policy about whether this clock should also be listed in the binding or not. My feeling is that it's better to make that explicit. Arnd