From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <maxime.coquelin@st.com>
Message-ID: <55C9E47D.4020606@st.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:03:09 +0200
From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@st.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
CC: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Michael Turquette
	<mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>, Stephen Boyd
	<sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 3/3] clk: introduce CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF flag
References: <1438974570-20812-1-git-send-email-mturquette@baylibre.com>	<1438974570-20812-4-git-send-email-mturquette@baylibre.com>	<20150810144811.GN3249@x1>	<20150810185516.2416.32293@quantum>	<20150811084329.GA13374@x1>	<55C9C82F.6060401@st.com>	<CAMuHMdVWxpZUQk6gUhSqA4K3gpDD8wUC6SHg6HAoiC1w=3+GLw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C9DE57.2090105@st.com>	<55C9DF7B.4040308@st.com> <CAMuHMdVvS2n=J5paZzXdtD0vZ4Q4m9k7XeF_MF1zV4pD-nk9aw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdVvS2n=J5paZzXdtD0vZ4Q4m9k7XeF_MF1zV4pD-nk9aw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
List-ID: <linux-clk.vger.kernel.org>



On 08/11/2015 01:49 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@st.com> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2015 01:36 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2015 12:11 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Maxime Coquelin
>>>> <maxime.coquelin@st.com> wrote:
>>>>> How can we pass CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF flag to a specific clock on STi
>>>>> platform?
>>>> Add the flag to the relevant clocks in the C code, e.g. in
>>>> clk_register_flexgen():
>>>>
>>>>           if (!strcmp(name, "clk-icn-cpu"))
>>>>                   init.flags |= CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF;
>> The main problem I see with this proposal is that clk_register_flexgen() is
>> called for several SoCs (STiH407/410/418...).
>> Each of these SoCs have this clock, but maybe STiH407 will need the flag,
>> but not STiH410 and STiH418.
>> So I think the best place to set this information is in DT, where the
>> differentiation is made between the SoCs.
> If (of_machine_is_compatible("st,stih410")) ...
>
It works, but is it really what we want?
Each time we will add a new soc, we will have to patch this SoC agnostic 
function?
With the number of SoCs and the number of clocks, it will be a nightmare 
to maintain and debug, no?

Regards,
Maxime