From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/14] ARM: OMAP2+: gpmc: Adapt to HWMOD Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:22:55 -0500 Message-ID: <4FD9E5AF.6010201@ti.com> References: <4FD64D6D.3020401@ti.com> <4FD77EF1.8000600@ti.com> <4FD8A906.8080202@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:50631 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753016Ab2FNNWy (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:22:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Mohammed, Afzal" Cc: "tony@atomide.com" , "paul@pwsan.com" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On 06/14/2012 02:03 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 20:21:50, Hunter, Jon wrote: > >> If the clk handle for the gpmc is passed to the gpmc driver, then there >> is no reason why the driver cannot do this. > > I believe passing clk details through platform data is an abuse of > clock framework. Why? You currently have a global variable storing the clock handle. It can be quite common for drivers to know the clock frequencies of their functional clocks. How else can drivers calculate timings? Jon