From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: tglx@linutronix.de (Thomas Gleixner)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 18:57:39 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCH RFC] clk: add support for automatic parent handling
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim8GUuMxwfHFoVv=LfQFuh4QaPn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1104192339180.2744@localhost6.localdomain6>
	<1303308457-7501-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
	<alpine.LFD.2.02.1104201704350.3323@ionos>
	<20110420185922.GD31131@pengutronix.de>
	<alpine.LFD.2.02.1104202113250.3323@ionos>
	<20110421074214.GE15233@pengutronix.de>
	<alpine.LFD.2.02.1104211113030.3323@ionos>
	<20110421120656.GF15233@pengutronix.de>
	<alpine.LFD.2.02.1104211632240.3323@ionos>
	<BANLkTikU9RLy9VR+tOPMt0u6zJp-bW5_Cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.02.1104221124270.3323@ionos>
	<BANLkTim8GUuMxwfHFoVv=LfQFuh4QaPn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1104221857060.3323@ionos>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Colin Cross wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > Another thing I'm pondering is to provide the ability to maintain
> > separate clk trees. So you can have individual domains which have
> > their per clk tree locking. Would that make sense ?
> 
> Clock trees are likely to be linked somewhere - an external clock chip
> that drives the main clock input on the SoC, or an SoC clock output
> that drives a chip with an internal clock tree.  Domains would have to
> be dynamically managed to ensure two clocks from different clock chips
> that become linked are moved under the same clock lock.  Probably
> easier to keep a global lock.

Ok. It's easy enough to split later if the need arises.

Thanks,

	tglx