From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/9] at91: provide macb clks with "pclk" and "hclk" name Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:00:10 +0000 Message-ID: <20110317100010.GF29758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1300184096-13937-1-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com> <1300184096-13937-2-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com> <20110316083844.GA13262@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com, Jamie Iles , plagnioj@jcrosoft.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Victor Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:44399 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753353Ab1CQKAe (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:00:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:22:37AM +0200, Andrew Victor wrote: > hi Russell, > > >> There is no reference to a "pclk" or "hclk" in the AT91 architecture. > >> So to avoid possible confusion, maybe create two "fake" clocks both > >> parented to "macb_clk", and add a comment they're only for > >> compatibility with the AVR32. > > > > It doesn't matter what's in the documentation. > > > > What matters more than conforming to documentation is keeping the drivers > > in a clean and maintainable state without throwing lots of ifdefs into > > them. > > I'm not saying the drivers need ifdefs, they should request both > "pclk" and "hclk" as suggested. > > What I was suggesting is the platform clock setup on AT91 as: > macb_clk > | > +-- hclk > +-- pclk > > rather than: > pclk > | > +-- hclk And what I've been saying all along is to make pclk a _dummy_ clock on the platform it doesn't exist for, rather than making it related in some way to another clock given to the peripheral.