From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] clk: st: New always-on clock domain
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:37:18 +0000
Message-ID: <20150302113718.GG32347@x1>
References: <1424799222-9301-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <87385r3uk9.fsf@free.fr>
 <20150227214941.GB12821@x1>
 <87sidq3ox8.fsf@free.fr>
 <20150302083019.GD31325@x1>
 <87vbij1vuk.fsf@free.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87vbij1vuk.fsf@free.fr>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mturquette@linaro.org, sboyd@codeaurora.org, kernel@stlinux.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 02 Mar 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:

> Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> writes:
>=20
> > On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> >
> >> Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> writes:
> >>     it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_=
UNUSED, it
> >>     says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have t=
o
> >>     CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied.
> >
> > Well that is exactly what we're doing.  Is there an issue with that=
?
> >
> > This is a way to do it at a platform level.  It means we can suppor=
t
> > multiple platforms where clocksources have been switched around
> > without writing new driver code in drivers/clk/st.
> >
> > If you have something else in mind, let me know.
> >
> >>  2) I still fail to see why this is necessary
> >>     IOW why declaring the mandatory always-on clocks with the prop=
er flag should
> >>     be augmented with a new clock list. Isn't the existing flag th=
e generic way
> >>     ?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by this, would you be able to expland a
> > little?
> >
> >> I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, =
that's why I'm
> >> asking.
> >
> > Please bear in mind that we don't supply our clocks statically.  Al=
l
> > of the information is extracted from DT, so if the always-on
> > information does reside in there, where do you propose it comes fro=
m?
>=20
> I thought the standard clock binding provided a way to set this flag.=
 Now I
> crosschecked the binding, it doesn't ...
>=20
> My point was I didn't want the flag to be settable from 2 different p=
laces,
> where consistency was to be kept across different device-tree leafs.
>=20
> > We could just write this code inside our own driver and apply the
> > CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED at a local level, but that's not the generic
> > solution I am searching for.
>=20
> All right, I'm convinced now I undertand the flag was not settable fr=
om
> devicetree binding before this patchset.
>=20
> You can add to patch 3/4 :
> Reviewed-by: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>

Until told otherwise, I'm going to apply this onto the other
patchset.  This one has already been NACKed, due to DT push-back.

--=20
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs
=46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog