Re: Virtual devices (cpufreq etc) and DT

[Jamie Iles <jamie-wmLquQDDieKakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 11:54:01AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 08/03/2011 11:41 AM, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 11:29:16AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On 08/03/2011 04:50 AM, Jamie Iles wrote:
> >>> I'm trying to work out how our cpufreq driver fits in with device tree 
> >>> bindings.  We have a simple driver that just takes a struct clk and 
> >>> calls clk_set_rate() on it.  Is a node in the device tree the right way 
> >>> to do this as it isn't really a physical device?  I have the PLL in the 
> >>> clocks group of the DT:
> >>
> >> Sounds generically useful...
> > 
> > Yes, once I've got it working internally I'll submit this as a generic 
> > thing for drivers/cpufreq.
> > 
> >> The OF clock bindings are not really completely finalized and work on
> >> the OF clk code is basically blocked waiting on the common struct clk
> >> infrastructure.
> > 
> > OK, so for the platform I'm working on mainlining at the moment does 
> > that mean I should leave the clock bindings for now or is that something 
> > that can be revised at a later date?
> > 
> I'm separating it out for mine and just doing limited clk implementation
> now based on the rate common struct clk is going.
> 
> There's a 3rd option. Implement DT clk binding parsing and clk node
> creation within your platform. Perhaps the struct clk details could be
> abstracted out from the binding parsing code so some could still be common.

OK, that sounds like pretty much what I have at the moment.  I have a 
struct clk and struct clk_ops then separate binding parsers so it should 
be fairly easy to port over.  I'll post some patches after the merge 
window closes.

Thanks,

Jamie