From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: james.hogan@imgtec.com (James Hogan) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 22:01:18 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 0/3] clk: implement remuxing during set_rate In-Reply-To: <20130514165937.10068.18501@quantum> References: <1366388904-13903-1-git-send-email-james.hogan@imgtec.com> <20130513195746.10068.92303@quantum> <20130514165937.10068.18501@quantum> Message-ID: <5192A61E.5020605@imgtec.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Mike, On 14/05/13 17:59, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting James Hogan (2013-05-13 14:30:46) >> On 13 May 2013 20:57, Mike Turquette wrote: >>> One reason for this is the difficulty some have had with setting flags >>> from DT bindings. >> >> Could you elaborate on this? I've been adding flags to DT bindings for >> this sort of thing, but it feels a bit like it's in that grey area of >> not really describing the hardware itself. This information needs to >> be specified somehow though. >> > > It depends on the flag. A good example is the CLK_DIVIDER_ONE_BASED > flag which does describe the hardware. It informs the binding that > indexing starts at 1, not 0, which is a valid part of the hardware > description. > > However flags that deal with software policy do not belong on DT. > CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT certainly does not belong in the DT binding since > this is a pure Linux-ism. Every binding just needs to be reviewed on a > case-by-case basis to make sure the flags are related only to the > hardware. So given the desire to eliminate platform code, is there a particular way that these other flags can be specified instead of DT bindings? Cheers James