[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 19:42:42 +0530
From: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To: David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 20/41] ARM: da830: add new clock init using common
clock framework
On Saturday 20 January 2018 10:43 PM, David Lechner wrote:
> void __init da830_init_time(void)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMMON_CLK
> + void __iomem *pll0, *psc0, *psc1;
> + struct clk *clk;
> +
> + pll0 = ioremap(DA8XX_PLL0_BASE, SZ_4K);
> + psc0 = ioremap(DA8XX_PSC0_BASE, SZ_4K);
> + psc1 = ioremap(DA8XX_PSC1_BASE, SZ_4K);
> +
> + da8xx_register_cfgchip();
> +
> + clk_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "ref_clk", NULL, 0, DA830_REF_FREQ);
> +
> + da830_pll_clk_init(pll0);
> +
> + da830_psc_clk_init(psc0, psc1);
> +
> + clk = clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "i2c0", "pll0_aux_clk", 0, 1, 1);
> + clk_register_clkdev(clk, NULL, "i2c_davinci.1");
> +
> + clk = clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "timer0", "pll0_aux_clk", 0, 1, 1);
> + clk_register_clkdev(clk, "timer0", NULL);
> +
> + clk = clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "timer1", "pll0_aux_clk", 0, 1, 1);
> + clk_register_clkdev(clk, NULL, "davinci-wdt");
Isn't this better done in da830_pll_clk_init() ? I think we can get rid
of the dummy fixed factor clock too and directly use the pll0_auxclk.
That reminds me, is "pll0_aux_clk" above correct, or should it be
"pll0_auxclk" like in da830_pll_clk_init()?
> +
> + clk = clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "rmii", "pll0_sysclk7", 0, 1, 1);
> + clk_register_clkdev(clk, "rmii", NULL);
I don't see any driver looking for this clock using con_id "rmii". I
know this came from existing code. But its most likely a vestige and can
be dropped.
Thanks,
Sekhar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists