From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:31:28 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] PWM: vt8500: Update vt8500 PWM driver support
In-Reply-To: <20121023092247.GA13220@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
References: <1350643135-13197-1-git-send-email-linux@prisktech.co.nz>
 <1350643135-13197-2-git-send-email-linux@prisktech.co.nz>
 <20121022063423.GA17181@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
 <1350888712.3592.11.camel@gitbox> <1350889747.3592.17.camel@gitbox>
 <20121022072448.GB30026@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
 <1350891382.3592.22.camel@gitbox>
 <20121022080414.GB4931@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
 <1350981706.20938.7.camel@gitbox>
 <20121023092247.GA13220@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
Message-ID: <20121023093128.GR21164@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:22:47AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:46PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > Further to the discussion, my preference is still for of_clk_get()
> > (although I've changed the patch anyway as you saw because it makes no
> > difference in this case) :)
> > 
> > clk_get(x, NULL) and devm_clk_get(x, NULL) both seems like 'hacks' to
> > allow platforms to convert to DT without having to update all their
> > drivers first. It only allows the first (default) clock, as your pointed
> > out. Getting a 2nd... clock relies on an optional property in DT (which
> > again, seems like it is there to support 'old' drivers) which allows you
> > to request clocks by name.
> > 
> > of_clk_get() on the other hand seems like a properly native DT function.
> > You don't need to know anything about the clock, as long as the correct
> > clock is specified in the correct order as documented by the binding.
> > Relying on 'pre-OF' code for a OF-only driver also seems
> > counter-intuitive.
> 
> I do agree with those arguments. What I was saying is that for drivers
> which aren't DT only, of_clk_get() is not an option and that maybe
> others would be encouraged by the example to not use the generic APIs
> even if their driver could be used in non-DT setups. But maybe I'm
> worrying needlessly.
> 
> That said, maybe somebody with a broader view of things like Arnd
> (Cc'ed) could share his thoughts.

As I have already said, the way the DT bindings were done for the clk
stuff was wrong.  A little thought put into it would've come up with
a much better solution which wouldn't have needed of_clk_get() at all.

How?

The arguments for clk_get() are:
1. the struct device, which you can get the OF-node from.
2. a _device_ _specific_ _clock_ _input_ _name_ (or NULL if there's only
   one.)

So, we have something that defines a hardware clock input name, which
can be used to generate a property name for OF.  So, what _could_ have
been done is this:

	clock-<input-name> = <&provider-node clk-output-index>;

where the property name is generated by:

	snprintf(prop, sizeof(prop), "clk-%s", name ? name : "default");

So I continue to assert that our current design is wrong - and it will
cause driver authors to pointlessly have to make a choice at every stage
between DT and non-DT based systems.