From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-gx0-f212.google.com ([209.85.217.212]:35852 "EHLO mail-gx0-f212.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761551AbZLJTGY (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:06:24 -0500 Received: by gxk4 with SMTP id 4so211828gxk.8 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:06:31 -0800 (PST) To: "Karicheri\, Muralidharan" Cc: "davinci-linux-open-source\@linux.davincidsp.com" , "linux-media\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH - v1 1/2] V4L - vpfe capture - make clocks configurable References: <1259687940-31435-1-git-send-email-m-karicheri2@ti.com> <87hbs0xhlx.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> From: Kevin Hilman Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:06:29 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Muralidharan Karicheri's message of "Wed\, 9 Dec 2009 14\:33\:07 -0600") Message-ID: <87ws0ups22.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: "Karicheri, Muralidharan" writes: > Kevin, > > I think I have figured it out... > > First issue was that I was adding my entry at the end of dm644x_clks[] > array. I need to add it before the CLK(NULL, NULL, NULL) > > secondly, your suggestion didn't work as is. This is what I had to > do to get it working... > > static struct clk ccdc_master_clk = { > .name = "dm644x_ccdc", > .parent = &vpss_master_clk, > }; > > static struct clk ccdc_slave_clk = { > .name = "dm644x_ccdc", > .parent = &vpss_slave_clk, > }; You should not need to add new clocks with new names. I don't thinke the name field of the struct clk is used anywhere in the matching. I think it's only used in /proc/davinci_clocks > static struct davinci_clk dm365_clks = { > .... > .... > CLK("dm644x_ccdc", "master", &ccdc_master_clk), > CLK("dm644x_ccdc", "slave", &ccdc_slave_clk), Looks like the drivers name is 'dm644x_ccdc', not 'isif'. I'm guessing just this should work without having to add new clock names. CLK("dm644x_ccdc", "master", &vpss_master_clk), CLK("dm644x_ccdc", "slave", &vpss_slave_clk), > CLK(NULL, NULL, NULL); > > Let me know if you think there is anything wrong with the above scheme. Kevin