From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans de Goede Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] clk: sunxi: Add prcm mod0 clock driver Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:04:57 +0100 Message-ID: <547589A9.5060802@redhat.com> References: <1416749895-25013-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <1416749895-25013-4-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20141125165744.GA17789@x1> 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: <20141125165744.GA17789@x1> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Lee Jones Cc: Emilio Lopez , Maxime Ripard , Mike Turquette , Samuel Ortiz , 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 05:57 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Add a driver for mod0 clocks found in the prcm. Currently there is only >> one mod0 clocks in the prcm, the ir clock. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/sunxi.txt | 1 + >> drivers/clk/sunxi/Makefile | 2 +- >> drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-prcm-mod0.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++ >> drivers/mfd/sun6i-prcm.c | 14 +++++ >> 4 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> create mode 100644 drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-prcm-mod0.c > > [...] > >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/sun6i-prcm.c b/drivers/mfd/sun6i-prcm.c >> index 283ab8d..ff1254f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mfd/sun6i-prcm.c >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/sun6i-prcm.c >> @@ -41,6 +41,14 @@ static const struct resource sun6i_a31_apb0_gates_clk_res[] = { >> }, >> }; >> >> +static const struct resource sun6i_a31_ir_clk_res[] = { >> + { >> + .start = 0x54, >> + .end = 0x57, >> + .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM, >> + }, >> +}; > > I'm not overly keen on these magic numbers (and yes, I'm well aware > that I SoB'ed the patch which started them off). > > It's not a show stopper, although I'd prefer if they were fixed with a > subsequent patch. These are offsets of the relevant registers inside the prcm register block, if not done this way, then how should they be done ? Regards, Hans