From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:37:18 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v3 0/4] clk: st: New always-on clock domain In-Reply-To: <87vbij1vuk.fsf@free.fr> References: <1424799222-9301-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <87385r3uk9.fsf@free.fr> <20150227214941.GB12821@x1> <87sidq3ox8.fsf@free.fr> <20150302083019.GD31325@x1> <87vbij1vuk.fsf@free.fr> Message-ID: <20150302113718.GG32347@x1> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 02 Mar 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > Lee Jones writes: > > > On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > > > >> Lee Jones writes: > >> it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it > >> says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to > >> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied. > > > > Well that is exactly what we're doing. Is there an issue with that? > > > > This is a way to do it at a platform level. It means we can support > > multiple platforms where clocksources have been switched around > > without writing new driver code in drivers/clk/st. > > > > If you have something else in mind, let me know. > > > >> 2) I still fail to see why this is necessary > >> IOW why declaring the mandatory always-on clocks with the proper flag should > >> be augmented with a new clock list. Isn't the existing flag the generic way > >> ? > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by this, would you be able to expland a > > little? > > > >> I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, that's why I'm > >> asking. > > > > Please bear in mind that we don't supply our clocks statically. All > > of the information is extracted from DT, so if the always-on > > information does reside in there, where do you propose it comes from? > > I thought the standard clock binding provided a way to set this flag. Now I > crosschecked the binding, it doesn't ... > > My point was I didn't want the flag to be settable from 2 different places, > where consistency was to be kept across different device-tree leafs. > > > We could just write this code inside our own driver and apply the > > CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED at a local level, but that's not the generic > > solution I am searching for. > > All right, I'm convinced now I undertand the flag was not settable from > devicetree binding before this patchset. > > You can add to patch 3/4 : > Reviewed-by: Robert Jarzmik Until told otherwise, I'm going to apply this onto the other patchset. This one has already been NACKed, due to DT push-back. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog