From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tglx@linutronix.de (Thomas Gleixner) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 00:08:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [PATCH v2 3/9] arm: twr-k70f120m: clock driver for Kinetis SoC In-Reply-To: References: <1435667250-28299-1-git-send-email-pawelo@king.net.pl> <1861313.aMcV1xHCIq@wuerfel> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Paul Osmialowski wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > I wonder if you could move out the fixed rate clocks into their own > > nodes. Are they actually controlled by the same block? If they are > > just fixed, you can use the normal binding for fixed rate clocks > > and only describe the clocks that are related to the driver. > > In my view having these clocks grouped together looks more convincing. After > all, they all share the same I/O regs in order to read configuration. The fact that they share a register is not making them a group. That's just a HW design decision and you need to deal with that by protecting the register access, but not by trying to group them artificially at the functional level. Thanks, tglx