From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 23:32:02 +0100 Subject: Should we pass amba device peripheral id with device structure or not? In-Reply-To: References: <4BECF57A.4050802@st.com> <20100521193802.GG11042@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4BFA02DC.6090906@st.com> <20100524213237.GH21117@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20100524223202.GA21923@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:17:02AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > [Russell] > We'd have to add a proper bus clock to all PrimeCells to have this in > some sane state I believe. That's basically what I'm saying. At the bus/driver level, we need to deal with the bus clock dependency separately from the peripheral clock if the bus clock can be shut off. I had originally anticipated that all primecells on a bus would have their bus clock fed from a common unmaskable source, and that shutting off the bus clock to the primecell would be a very bad thing to happen to the bus - but it seems that it's permitted after all. This will be trivial to deal with for clkdev-based platforms... The non-clkdev are an entirely separate proposition - but I don't think we have any primecell-using platforms which don't use clkdev.