Re: omap clock.h question

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Woodruff, Richard <r-woodruff2@ti.com> [060207 14:58]:
> > * Woodruff, Richard <r-woodruff2@ti.com> [060207 14:07]:
> > > > I believe he meant just to hide the clock number for mmc 1 or 2.
> But I
> > > > guess we still need to have different naming for omap1 and omap2.
> > >
> > > Like I was saying you could hide both the slot and the names.
> > >
> > >  for(i=data.slot[slot].num_clks; i>0; i--)
> > >  {
> > > 	ck = clk_get(data.slot.clk_name[i-1])
> > > 	if(ck != NULL)
> > > 	clk_enabl(ck);
> > >  }
> > >
> > > That way we don't care the name or how many.  It gets rid of some if
> > > statements anyway.
> > 
> > But one of the clocks can be off more often than the other from PM
> point
> > of view.
> 
> Perhaps, but probably not for OMAP2.  The I clocks and the F clock
> enables are local to the module. Enabling an F or an I clock doesn't
> mean the parent which supplies it is active. It will open up a gate of
> sorts and raise a clock request.  If that parent source is running then
> it can propagate into the functional block.
> 
> I don't think OMAP1 does it quite like this.  The source clock doesn't
> have the module level gating.  
> 
> Seems like in theory you and run some modules with their I clock off and
> the F clock on, though I doubt you would do it much in practice.  You
> can just set your I clock to auto idle and it will raise and lower its
> clock request automatically as needed, effectively doing the same.

OK, let's do it in two phases then. First I'll just get rid of the clock
numbers, then let's see if we can combine some clocks later on.

Tony