From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans de Goede Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] clk: sunxi: Add prcm mod0 clock driver Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:37:13 +0100 Message-ID: <54743FB9.7070601@redhat.com> References: <1416498928-1300-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <1416498928-1300-4-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20141121084933.GL24143@lukather> <546F0226.2040700@redhat.com> <20141124220327.GS4752@lukather> <54743DE1.7020704@redhat.com> Reply-To: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54743DE1.7020704-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Emilio Lopez , Mike Turquette , Linux Media Mailing List , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, devicetree , linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 11/25/2014 09:29 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Well one reasons why clocks are instantiated the way they are is to have > them available as early as possible, which is really convenient and works > really well. > > You are asking for a whole lot of stuff to be changed, arguably in a way > which makes it worse, just to save 47 lines of code... Thinking more about this one alternative which should work is to just put the clocks in the prcm in the clocks node, then they get their own reg property, rather then being part of the prcm reg range, and the standard of_clk mod0 driver we have will just work. Regards, Hans