From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 09:05:22 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 21/21] clk: ux500: Supply provider look-up functionality to support Device Tree In-Reply-To: <201306042252.03340.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1370266965-7901-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1370266965-7901-22-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <201306042252.03340.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20130605080522.GP3370@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 04 Jun 2013, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 04 June 2013, Linus Walleij wrote: > > The whole thing is very different from other DT clock things > > I've seen, usually you add a compatible node for each > > clock type, and a node for each physical gate. But there > > may be several ways to skin this cat... > > > > Based on the IRC discussion we had, I would think that the "prcc" clocks > would best be represented using multiple clock-cells since you can describe > them easily a tuple of register index, bit number some way to distinguish > the two types. > > The "prcmu" clocks are harder, and we probably need either a more verbose > representation using one node per clock there, or have a single node > for the entire prcmu and not bother to describe them in DT but hardcode > everything in the source. The current patch does the latter, which is > easier now but means we cannot simplify the code much in the future > when we remove ATAGS boot support. As already discussed, in the PRCMU case I'm going to make 'enum prcmu_clock {' look like register PRCM_YYCLKEN0_MGT_SET as described by the design specification, and use that as our indexer. > I hope Mike can give some better insight to what his preferences are. > > Arnd -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog