From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754824Ab3AJMwF (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:52:05 -0500 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:40475 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753765Ab3AJMwB (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:52:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:51:59 +0000 From: Mark Brown To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Mika Westerberg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, linus.walleij@linaro.org, eric.y.miao@gmail.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, haojian.zhuang@gmail.com, chao.bi@intel.com, "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] spi/pxa2xx: make clock rate configurable from platform data Message-ID: <20130110125159.GQ20956@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1357555480-24022-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20130110095803.GJ13897@intel.com> <20130110123837.GO13897@intel.com> <2921304.SsX3sQo2BU@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="63aIh6YiuHX+oBFP" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2921304.SsX3sQo2BU@vostro.rjw.lan> X-Cookie: You will be awarded some great honor. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --63aIh6YiuHX+oBFP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 01:54:41PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 02:38:37 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > 3. We make the acpi_create_platform_device() match on, lets say > > "INT33C" (a partial match), and in such case it assumes that we are > > running on Lynxpoint. It will then create platform device for 'clk-lpt'. > > 4. Now the clk-lpt driver creates the clocks. > > 5. The SPI driver gets the clock it wants. > That sounds reasonable to me. Mark, what do you think? Sounds sensible, yes - about what I'd expect. Is it possible to match on CPUID or similar information (given that this is all in the SoC) instead of ACPI, that might be more robust I guess? --63aIh6YiuHX+oBFP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ7rlnAAoJELSic+t+oim9iLsP/iLfIm5S6kuvG67Ft/xztPcG HQXc6bMNqMejQ1kmHCJ9FFl/5VRl3qV7UMOV0SZYAmTerleChrF01otaULbFUfx0 QKq23lZpp74BPGBgeEejEvftQ/rGz0JE4uGtFomFsy1GiXuqcpqmqQU7ANH/O07b n+6+N02TsxeyBMj/fY+7aAIlaAn2f+XtqlWWl5V3HcrSPpcmIMgH6KMOmv75Lo2m cGrkzDnhKpjMhZ++JN1Ax+qVl3Vmum9BZGZ5mHDgr8GxqDhuLFzbg502GMR1OwPB IXHwg85P9/394QFNgdeFThdSIWRw44LcmcP4kay1ALLqGoifx4D+Lq5lPYuVFSR5 0ZXaw8AE4OugtL6Xw6EGFRtlYDXbABrYNxQg5qKjB4L0RpR/gyDHd+uS1HRQ+sBe 1P7BJUGATy4fO4Kin4tH45KKTgxWG2P+AXgU0GDQW/v9U6E64AhsU6XGqEFJv9AR eUD3gzl3hG1IxgZZk5jrP04dnbzgynMF7x8uib+38HpUSiOe/oIHr8DcrqIwc1p4 2reAov5jFgA1T/J8HzL6KCSrOdGSrzkiUmYojkM25oFkvmuwbu8oLuhaRkZgfGBX 6cVQBjc301PPg+R/ujw8ngsFenBiTNYxjprKrHk0w466bGZyBy+O1Taa6T5KC4aq eoWt3cZChgafxPqdIcE+ =Sed1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --63aIh6YiuHX+oBFP--