Devicetree

* Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] clk: vc5: Add structure to describe particular chip features
From: Alexey Firago @ 2017-04-06 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marek Vasut, mturquette, sboyd, robh+dt, geert, linux-clk,
	devicetree
In-Reply-To: <d461ac7d-4081-4444-6875-de4d8013dec3@gmail.com>

On 06.04.2017 17:54, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 04/06/2017 11:15 AM, Alexey Firago wrote:
>> Introduce vc5_chip_info structure to describe features of a particular
>> VC5 chip (id, number of FODs, number of outputs, flags).
>> For now flags are only used to indicate if chip has internal XTAL.
>> vc5_chip_info is set on probe from the matched of_device_id->data.
>>
>> Also add defines to specify maximum number of FODs and clock outputs
>> supported by the driver.
>>
>> With these changes it should be easier to extend driver to support
>> more VC5 models.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Firago <alexey_firago@mentor.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
>
>> ---
>>  drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c b/drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c
>> index 56741f3..4e81fb1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c
>> @@ -113,12 +113,30 @@
>>  #define VC5_MUX_IN_XIN		BIT(0)
>>  #define VC5_MUX_IN_CLKIN	BIT(1)
>>
>> +/* Maximum number of clk_out supported by this driver */
>> +#define VC5_MAX_CLK_OUT_NUM	3
>> +
>> +/* Maximum number of FODs supported by this driver */
>> +#define VC5_MAX_FOD_NUM	2
>> +
>> +/* flags to describe chip features */
>> +/* chip has built-in oscilator */
>> +#define VC5_HAS_INTERNAL_XTAL	BIT(0)
>> +
>>  /* Supported IDT VC5 models. */
>>  enum vc5_model {
>>  	IDT_VC5_5P49V5923,
>>  	IDT_VC5_5P49V5933,
>>  };
>>
>> +/* Structure to describe features of a particular VC5 model */
>> +struct vc5_chip_info {
>> +	const enum vc5_model	model;
>> +	const unsigned int	clk_fod_cnt;
>> +	const unsigned int	clk_out_cnt;
>> +	u32			flags;
>
> Shouldn't this also be const ?

It probably should, since we are not changing flags at runtime 
currently. Will resend.

Thanks,
Alexey

^ permalink raw reply