From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de (Steffen Trumtrar) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:41:38 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 05/10] arm: zynq: Move slcr initialization to separate file In-Reply-To: <201303270931.26351.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1364319822-5504-1-git-send-email-michal.simek@xilinx.com> <201303262143.23708.arnd@arndb.de> <20130327065551.GC16139@pengutronix.de> <201303270931.26351.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20130327094138.GG16139@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 09:31:26AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 27 March 2013, Steffen Trumtrar wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:43:23PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Tuesday 26 March 2013, Michal Simek wrote: > > > > Create separate slcr driver instead of pollute common code. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek > > > > > > Can't you move that code into the zynq_cpu_clk_setup function > > > instead, and only call of_clk_init(NULL) from platform code? > > > > > if you are talking about the slcr function, than moving it into > > a separate file is the right move. This should actually become a > > real driver. The slcr is master over all clock, reset, pinmux and > > ddr registers. And as all those registers can be locked/unlocked > > via a slcr register (for whatever reason one would do that), there > > should be one master that controls this space. > > Ok, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Should this be using the > drivers/mfd/syscon.c infrastructure then? A quick look suggests that this might be the way to go. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks, Steffen -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |