From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm: shmobile: r7s72100: add i2c clocks Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:15:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20131218121541.GE3314@katana> References: <1387316678-10174-1-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de> <1387316678-10174-3-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de> <52B1892B.1020806@cogentembedded.com> <20131218114351.GD3314@katana> <52B18CC9.8090200@cogentembedded.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aPdhxNJGSeOG9wFI" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52B18CC9.8090200@cogentembedded.com> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Magnus Damm , Laurent Pinchart , Simon Horman , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org --aPdhxNJGSeOG9wFI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:53:45PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > On 18-12-2013 15:43, Wolfram Sang wrote: >=20 > >>>@@ -173,6 +179,10 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] =3D { > >>> CLKDEV_CON_ID("mtu2_fck", &mstp_clks[MSTP33]), >=20 > >>> /* ICK */ > >>>+ CLKDEV_DEV_ID("fcfee000.i2c", &mstp_clks[MSTP97]), > >>>+ CLKDEV_DEV_ID("fcfee400.i2c", &mstp_clks[MSTP96]), > >>>+ CLKDEV_DEV_ID("fcfee800.i2c", &mstp_clks[MSTP95]), > >>>+ CLKDEV_DEV_ID("fcfeec00.i2c", &mstp_clks[MSTP94]), >=20 > >> These belong to some other place, the group marked by /* ICK */ > >>is only for CLKDEV_ICK_ID(). >=20 > >So, I'll create a /* DEV */ prefix? >=20 > I really don't know. Other places have /* MSTP */ comment in this > case despite all clocks, CLKDEV_DEV_ID() and CLKDEV_ICK_ID() are > really MSTP clocks. I considered the idea of separating > CLKDEV_ICK_ID() under /* ICK */ comment silly from the very start > but Simon didn't listen to me. I am puzzled, too. ICK is a type of registration and not a clock domain. Also, there is 'mtu2_fck' which is under ICK as well as MSTP? Looks wrong. From what I understand now, removing the /* ICK */ comment would be easiest and proper? --aPdhxNJGSeOG9wFI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSsZHtAAoJEBQN5MwUoCm293wP/0EtqobQ1Mfvxeh1ywSj1J0K ZC5alewm8KxakzToHYybNJdD8DcsceAcASB6Ze3azEp9MvOgaWXnFBuDHvmINnCj ZYst3iLeRXlwPvCfuwkAsknykO8uXa/ULOD6PprD+I/7vAEKhPas4M7cz0xu3NLK iVguL4sWhn6hfxKoWMJZypijYnVq7Kg/VQlHzCMpGufp6PxRcqsUWOdYNoOQqBlp yE7bAbiNu0Wsq6yTmc4nSYi5kurA/lkHNZPmn0NlhOin4BrnOYESb3V4fydjDSUB nR0twwnYIe2kQx00oJzCHLXeFehV7YJszw9+bmisvO4w1znWyle1juTbODR4U0EU A5KyyEdisrk5dheks74lCBITQ/PtchHbyvva8lIGM80RwuPbXmE/iXvia4N6LiCq jvGNACp2iePV0Rf/+jWM1Uci82OhGtRe+DLKi57AWdCiA8pPW/mureeL5EtIofXu Am1lRwvvVeZU3YmLmCc+fm7t0NditVNFt1iKdDwmgAnN1lRok+Y2vwknFO3Ylrwv LuFDCmdTyFtec4xj8HsizWLiTVbNg7ChzrfA1Vmnfibo6EvzhzR+nkglK7f0w04Q U5Sku6KaWtuwcskjpve6JnBkHYEIzITxWVFnXGYVsimtGtEPmQKJcCkNlAtuLoiZ Ka9MIKwq1Zs4purJmpqp =IM8q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aPdhxNJGSeOG9wFI--