From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rajendra Nayak Subject: Re: [RFC 00/24] Move OMAP2+ over to use COMMON clock Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 19:34:14 +0530 Message-ID: <4FCCC05E.4090904@ti.com> References: <1338552485-31325-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <4FC94FC9.9070903@ti.com> <4FCC7737.8070201@ti.com> <4FCCBD66.2080504@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog122.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.147]:60229 "EHLO na3sys009aog122.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752716Ab2FDOE0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:04:26 -0400 Received: by obbuo19 with SMTP id uo19so8226004obb.40 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 07:04:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FCCBD66.2080504@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Jon Hunter Cc: mturquette@ti.com, paul@pwsan.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Monday 04 June 2012 07:21 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >> I was infact thinking of moving these files into mach-omap1/ since they >> > are now OMAP1 specific. Is your concern coming mainly from the clksel >> > structs that you will need to be shared across OMAP1 and OMAP2+? > Yes, especially if we plan to move omap1 to the common clock framework. > >> > The right thing to do seems like is to move OMAP1 across to COMMON clk >> > also and keep the plat clock.h and get rid of plat clock.c completely. >> > But for now, I really haven;t looked at OMAP1 migration as all. > Yes that would make sense. Do you have plans to do this or not yet? At-least my plan for this series was to address only OMAP2+.