From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: t-kristo@ti.com (Tero Kristo)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:44:56 +0200
Subject: [PATCHv12 06/49] clk: add support for low level register ops
In-Reply-To: <52C7141F.2020901@codeaurora.org>
References: <1387557274-22583-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com>
 <1387557274-22583-6-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com>
 <20131222173926.GB8064@book.gsilab.sittig.org> <52C67F53.6000402@ti.com>
 <52C7141F.2020901@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <52CBB078.7000607@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 01/03/2014 09:48 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 01/03/14 01:13, Tero Kristo wrote:
>> On 12/22/2013 07:39 PM, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Further I'd suggest to split this register access aspect out of
>>> the TI clock series, and to prepare it already for regmap style
>>> access to the hardware registers.  See the next comment below.
>>
>> This sounds like a good idea to me, seeing it is blocking lots of
>> other things.
>
> This ll_ops struct looks like a simplified regmap. Have you seen my
> series that adds regmap support to the common clock framework[1]? Is
> there any reason why you can't use those patches and layer some patches
> on top to add support for regmap to the basic clock types?
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/23/461

Yea I've seen that. I also used regmap myself on some earlier rev, but 
it is rather an overkill solution to my purposes, and it also adds 
additional latencies to the register access.

-Tero