From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <49D1C624.2050502@grandegger.com> References: <49D1C624.2050502@grandegger.com> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:33:37 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Inconsistent fsl_get_sys_freq() implementation From: Grant Likely To: Wolfgang Grandegger Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linuxppc-dev , devicetree-discuss List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > > Hello, > > we realized an inconsistent implementation of fsl_get_sys_freq(): > > http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v2.6.29/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c#L80 > > For 826x and 827x boards, the function is available but it cannot be > used because the "bus-frequency" property is not defined for the SOC and > U-Boot also does not try to do a fixup. I think that's a mistake, and > the DTS files and U-Boot should be fixed, right? > Furthermore, I find the name confusing. fsl_get_soc_bus_freq() would be > more appropriate also to distinguish from the frequencies of the CPU. > And why does the MPC52xx use a different name mpc52xx_find_ipb_freq() > for that frequency? It makes support for common hardware like I2C awkward. I haven't looked at fsl_get_soc_bus_freq(), but if the functions are duplicated, then I've got no problem changing the 52xx support to use common code. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.