Re: [PATCH 5/6] Clocklib: Use correct clock for IrDA on pxa

Dmitry
2008-04-09T07:16:05Z

Hi,

2008/4/8, Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:47:35PM +0400, Dmitry wrote:
> > Yes, it works currently. But there are a few problems: we declare
> > STUART's UARTCLK with dev=NULL (all other UARTCLKs are declared with
> > proper devices). Therefore, I consider it as a hack and would like
> > to remove it.
>
>
> I don't consider it a hack at all - it's a work around for the fact
> that the PXA FIR driver shares the UART, but the FIR driver doesn't
> bind to the UART itself.

Would you then accept the patch that still contains UARTCLK bound to
pxa uart device, and IrDA requesting clock STUARTCLK?

> The _real_ issue is with IrDA itself, and is larger than just the
> clock library. Any serial port which supports IrDA, even on x86,
> has to be shared between the serial driver and the IrDA driver -
> there's no way for them to quietly co-exist and "just work" as
> requested.

Yes. I wonder how this is solved in other platforms.
>
> So, let's not work around the short comings of Serial/IrDA interactions
> by adding additional complexity to random other layers which _shouldn't_
> even be seeing the issue.
>
> In addition, the point of the clock framework is that you ask for the
> device plus clock NAME on _that_ device. Inventing random other names
> for the same physical clock on the same physical device is just nonsense -
> even more so than the existing workaround.

See my proposition above. I highly dislike the UARTCLK w/o device declared.
Once it has already lead me to (small) problems due to messed other
UARTCLKs declarations on pxa25x.