From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: josh.wu@atmel.com (Josh Wu)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:29:07 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 4/5] iio: at91: add an optional dt property for for adc
 clock hz.
In-Reply-To: <51E52B9B.5030407@metafoo.de>
References: <1373789069-11604-1-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com>
 <1373789069-11604-5-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com>
 <20130715130610.GD2962@lukather> <51E4FC70.3050207@atmel.com>
 <20130716103014.GB3125@lukather> <51E52B9B.5030407@metafoo.de>
Message-ID: <51F0D3C3.5090201@atmel.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 7/16/2013 7:16 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 07/16/2013 12:30 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> [...]
>>> After a further thinking of this, maybe remove the adc_op_clk is
>>> better since it is a fake clock, and only used to specify the clock
>>> rate.
>>> To specify the clock rate use a dt property or platform data
>>> parameter is better.
>> No, to specify *any* clock, the common clock framework is the better
>> solution.
> Yep, this patch is not the right approach. It's trying to work around the
> limitations of the platforms clock API implementation. Please fix the at91
> clock implementation instead (e.g. by switching to the common clock framework).

Thank you and Maxime for the clarify. I will drop this patch in next 
version.
Just FYI. The at91 clock common framework is in implementation by Boris 
Brezillion.

>
> - Lars
>

Best Regards,
Josh Wu