From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:20:20 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: dbx500-prcmu: Correctly reorder PRCMU clock identifiers In-Reply-To: References: <1370517676-10909-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1370517676-10909-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20130607142020.GB24958@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 07 Jun 2013, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > > > ... as stipulated by the Hardware Specification document. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones > > I think you need Ulf (as ux500 clock author) and Loic (as PRCMU > developer) to have a look at this. > > > -enum prcmu_clock { > > - PRCMU_SGACLK, > (...) > > +#define ARMCLK 0 > > +#define PRCMU_ACLK 1 > (...) > > It seems the enum and the defines want to do two different things? > > The first is a kernel-internal representation of the clocks, whereas > the latter is a HW-centric representation for a certain PRCMU > variant (I guess?) > > Does one actually exclude the other? >>From what I can tell, they're non-ordered values which are used as read-ins to the clk_mgt array. So long as they are unique I'm not sure the order matters. The current order seems 'made up', unless I'm mistaken. I agree that Ulf should take a look and confirm/deny my findings. -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog