From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:52:20 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: shmobile: compile drivers/sh for CONFIG_ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI In-Reply-To: <20140120155643.GQ17314@sirena.org.uk> References: <1389707776-23306-1-git-send-email-ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> <1482392.XFeYNLvUZH@avalon> <20140120155643.GQ17314@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <1566590.zu3Q3sqakp@avalon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Mark, On Monday 20 January 2014 15:56:43 Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:48:10PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > The problem isn't as simple as it seems, and more advanced implementations > > that would allow listing clocks that should be managed automatically (or > > the other way around) would also add another level of complexity. The > > required information is platform-dependent, but we currently don't > > express it as such in DT. > > Well, the set of clocks an IP requires will tend to be the same - it's > normally just that integrators may have done things like tie them together > or decide to spread confusion by renaming them. That's the problem :-) How should the runtime PM core be given the list of clocks it needs to manage ? That information needs to come from somewhere. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 490 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: