From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com (Vladimir Zapolskiy) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:41:11 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: imx6: clk: i.MX6 DualLite/Solo i2c4 clock In-Reply-To: <534ECCF4.9040108@gmail.com> References: <534ECCF4.9040108@gmail.com> Message-ID: <534FCBE7.6020007@mentor.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/16/14 21:33, Iain Paton wrote: > Compared to i.MX6 Quad/Dual the CCM_CCGR1 register in the i.MX6 Solo/DualLite > replaces the ecspi5 clock with the i2c4 clock. > > Handle this difference using cpu_is_imx6dl(). > > Signed-off-by: Iain Paton > --- > arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx6q.c | 8 +++++++- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx6q.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx6q.c > index b0e7f9d..2961b16 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx6q.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx6q.c > @@ -352,7 +352,13 @@ static void __init imx6q_clocks_init(struct device_node *ccm_node) > clk[ecspi2] = imx_clk_gate2("ecspi2", "ecspi_root", base + 0x6c, 2); > clk[ecspi3] = imx_clk_gate2("ecspi3", "ecspi_root", base + 0x6c, 4); > clk[ecspi4] = imx_clk_gate2("ecspi4", "ecspi_root", base + 0x6c, 6); > - clk[ecspi5] = imx_clk_gate2("ecspi5", "ecspi_root", base + 0x6c, 8); > + if (cpu_is_imx6dl()) > + /* > + * ecspi5 is replaced with i2c4 on imx6dl& imx6s > + */ > + clk[ecspi5] = imx_clk_gate2("i2c4", "ipg_per", base + 0x6c, 8); Is it good enough to reuse ecspi5 enum value here or may it be better to introduce a new one i2c4 equal to ecspi5? > + else > + clk[ecspi5] = imx_clk_gate2("ecspi5", "ecspi_root", base + 0x6c, 8); > clk[enet] = imx_clk_gate2("enet", "ipg", base + 0x6c, 10); > clk[esai] = imx_clk_gate2("esai", "esai_podf", base + 0x6c, 16); > clk[gpt_ipg] = imx_clk_gate2("gpt_ipg", "ipg", base + 0x6c, 20); With best wishes, Vladimir