Re: [PATCH 05/04] *** NOT FOR RELEASE *** HACK *** Work around MII clock issue ***

[Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Wolfgang Denk<wd@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear John,
>
> in message <4b73d43f0906061708o763409d0u10a344dfc30e32c1@mail.gmail.com> =
you wrote:
>>
>> > The big question seems to be what the RefMan means when talking about
>> > the "system clock frequency". Obiously it is NOT =A0the =A0CPU =A0cloc=
k =A0as
> ...
>> > But which one is it?
>>
>> My best guess is still that it is ips clock. =A0I think I stated in a pr=
evious
>> email ipb, but I meant ips. =A05200 has ibp and 5121 has ips. =A0Have yo=
u looked
>> at he MII clock on a scope to see how the calculated values compare to
>> actual?
>
> Yes, it seems very much as if you were right again.
>
> When using ips/ibp everything makes sense, and works.
>
> Hm... so that means on MPC512x we should use mpc512x_find_ips_freq(),
> while on MPC5200 we should use =A0mpc52xx_find_ipb_freq() =A0- =A0but =A0=
hey,
> apart from the name these two functions are identical.
>
> Grant - how would you like to see this handled? Should we merge these
> two code-wise identical functions into one? =A0What should be the name,
> and in which file should we put it?

If you want to merge them... Seeing as the function just walks up the
parent nodes looking for the "bus-frequency" property; how about
"mpc5xxx_get_bus_frequency()"?  It should go somewhere in
arch/powerpc/sysdev/

Alternately, it is a pretty trivial function; 52xx and 512x could both
have their own versions of it.  Whichever makes the most sense to you
(I haven't personally looked at the device driver impact).

g.

--=20
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.