From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jongsung Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: fixed-factor: add optional dt-binding clock-flags Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:48:06 +0900 Message-ID: <5779C056.3020209@lge.com> References: <20160621005910.GN1521@codeaurora.org> <1466741572-58802-1-git-send-email-neidhard.kim@lge.com> <20160628205518.GF3737@rob-hp-laptop> <146714872010.89261.1969853552594659808@resonance> <5773736D.3060405@lge.com> <20160702002030.GF27880@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160702002030.GF27880@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Michael Turquette , Rob Herring , Maxime Ripard , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chanho Min List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 2016=EB=85=84 07=EC=9B=94 02=EC=9D=BC 09:20, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 06/29, Jongsung Kim wrote: >> On 2016=EB=85=84 06=EC=9B=94 29=EC=9D=BC 06:18, Michael Turquette wr= ote: >>> Quoting Rob Herring (2016-06-28 13:55:18) >>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 01:12:52PM +0900, Jongsung Kim wrote: >>>>> There is no way to set additional flags for a DT-initialized fixe= d- >>>>> factor-clock, and it can be problematic i.e., when the clock rate >>>>> needs to be changed. [1][2] >>>>> >>>>> This patch introduces an optional dt-binding named "clock-flags" = to >>>>> be used for passing any needed flags from dts. >>>> I don't think we want this in DT. If we did, the flags would need = some=20 >>>> documentation about what the flags mean. >>> Flags are specific to Linux implementation, so I agree with Rob. Be= tter >>> to create a compatible string for your hardware that bakes in the f= lags. >> Thank you for your comment, Mike. This conversation starts from lack= ing method to set CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT from DT. I understand compatible = string can be a solution. But.. if someone starts talking about lacking= method to set another flag, i.e., CLK_SET_PARENT_GATE, then we'll need= another compatible string list. >> How do you think about defining possible required subset of the flag= s and using some more neutral flag-names acceptable in DT? > Do you actually have an IC on the board that is doing some fixed > factor calculation? Or is this a clk driver design where we are > listing out each piece of an SoC's clk controller in DT? > The SoC has several PLLs of identical design, and one of them is divide= d to half and used for CPUs. The fixed-factor-clock represents the divide= r.