From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: clock driver Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 15:38:29 -0700 Message-ID: <20150526223829.GA26454@roeck-us.net> References: <5564C58B.9050400@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5564C58B.9050400-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: York Sun Cc: linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, lee.jones-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, andrey-MoRZu3FOBbXQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, sebastian.hesselbarth-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, rabeeh-UBr1pzP51AyaMJb+Lgu22Q@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:12:11PM -0700, York Sun wrote: > Linux experts, > > I have rewritten a driver for Silicon Labs SI5338 programmable clock chip. The > original driver was written by Andrey (CC'ed), but was floatingn outside of the > kernel. The driver was written to use sysfs as the interface, not the common > clock framework. I wonder if I have to rewrite the driver following common clock > framework. One concern is to support a feature to accept ClockBuilder (TM) > output on sysfs. I don't see sysfs support on common clock framework. Please > correct me if I am wrong. > > If not using common clock framework is acceptable, I would like to send a RFC > patch for review. > My original driver for si570 was rejected because it didn't support the clock framework, so you might face an uphill battle. SI provides a document for SI5338 describing how to configure it without using clockbuilder [1]. Can that be used to implement generic code which doesn't need clockbuilder ? Guenter --- [1] https://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/Si5338-RM.pdf