[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090131141703.GJ1394@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:17:03 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH B 04/10] OMAP3 PRCM: add DPLL1-5 powerdomains, clockdomains; mark clocks
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 07:44:18PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> Each DPLL exists in its own powerdomain (cf 34xx TRM figure 4-18) and
> clockdomain; so, create powerdomain and clockdomain structures for them.
> Mark each DPLL clock as belonging to their respective DPLL clockdomain.
> cf. 34xx TRM Table 4-27 (among other references).
I don't really see the need to mark all these clocks as having a domain.
Yes, it makes sense to mark the actual DPLL clocks themselves with the
relevent DPLL domain. However, it makes no sense to mark the children
as well.
Why? When we enable a clock, we walk up the tree enabling the domains
first. So, even if we're enabling a child clock, we will walk the tree
up to the DPLL and enable the clock domain before we do anything at all.
Sure, if a clock has a multiplexer and that multiplexer is in a different
clock domain from its parent, it makes sense to. But otherwise it doesn't.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists