From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com (=?utf-8?B?U8O2cmVu?= Brinkmann)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:13:11 -0800
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/3] clk: CCF clock primitives + custom IO accessors
In-Reply-To: <20140303190736.GU3327@book.gsilab.sittig.org>
References: <1393630495-29689-1-git-send-email-soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
 <20140302202940.GQ3327@book.gsilab.sittig.org>
 <19206d89-cd0d-4fea-9170-3fd0a8482bf5@VA3EHSMHS045.ehs.local>
 <20140303190736.GU3327@book.gsilab.sittig.org>
Message-ID: <87e0d582-77a2-4645-a52a-c303b7cd8b84@VA3EHSMHS007.ehs.local>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 08:07PM +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:35 -0800, S?ren Brinkmann wrote:
> > 
> > It would be nice if we could use the logic provided in the mux, div etc
> > primitives independently of how the HW is accessed and what is
> > necessary to shift and mask those register values around, right? I
> > mean, at then end we want to model a clk-(div|mux) and not a
> > clk-(div|mux) which has only a single, memory-mapped control register,
> > that does not overlap with other things, ...
> 
> Did you lookup the ll_ops discussion in the thread that
> originated from
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/289895 and
> did you see the outlined logic in
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/109233 and
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/109381 ?
> 
> Support for regmap access instead of mere MMIO was one of the
> things you could do with this approach.  You appear to be in the
> situation where you need such an extension (or something similar,
> but you really should look into the ll_ops thing).

Thanks for those pointer, I have some reading to do. That seems to
go into the right direction.  What is the status of those patches?
Are they already merged or actively worked on?

	Thanks,
	S?ren