From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 11:31:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: OMAP: AM35xx: fix UART4 softreset In-Reply-To: References: <20120510172449.13418.66815.stgit@dusk> <20120510172918.13418.64781.stgit@dusk> <4FACD255.3080702@ti.com> Message-ID: <4FACDC63.7060605@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 5/11/2012 11:22 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi Beno?t > > On Fri, 11 May 2012, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > >> I do not have any clue about that chip, but is this clock really what it is >> supposed to be? I mean, isn't the uart1_fck the parent of all the UART fck or >> something like that. Don't we just have an issue becasue the clock names are >> not accurate? > > I guess that's what I'm trying to find out. > > According to the AM3517 TRM rev. B (SPRUGR0B) Figure 14-20 "UART > Functional Integration" and Table 14-11 "UART Clocks", all of the UARTs > appear to have independent functional clocks. The table even mentions a > CM_FCLKEN1_CORE.EN_UART4 bit. But the PRCM chapter of this TRM doesn't > mention that at all. So the documentation is not too useful here. > > On the rest of the OMAPs, as far as I know, the UART clocks are all > separate. In fact, not really. The same PER_48M_GFCLK clock is used for every UART instances in OMAP4. We do have a separate modulemode for each UART but as far as clocks are concerned, the source clock is the same. Regards, Benoit