[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FAFEB2D.5010009@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 19:11:09 +0200
From: Sebastian Hesselbarh <sebastian.hesselbarth@...glemail.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mturquette@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Common clock framework for external clock generators
On 05/13/2012 06:43 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> One of the patches I've been sending adds a dummy clk_unregister() for
> the sake of making the drivers look nicer - practically speaking it's
> not likely to be terribly important as these things don't get unloaded
> terribly often. It looks like that patch didn't get applied either.
Well, of course I don't plan to unload the driver ever but basically it
is possible..
One more thing I thought about: The platform I currently use needs to
pass the external clocks to the platform devices that can use them
later. IMHO the correct way of creating clocks would be:
- register i2c clock driver and let it register its clocks with names
like e.g. si5351, clkout0. The clock driver itself cannot and should
not know who uses it later on.
- let drivers look for e.g. kirkwood-i2s.1, extclk because the i2s
driver cannot know where the external clock comes from.
- have a board-specific function that configures clock hierarchy and
create suitable clk_aliases e.g.
si5351,clkout0 = kirkwood-i2s.1,extclk.
Currently I added a callback function pointer to the platform data
passed to the i2c clock driver that is called at the end of clock
driver probe. I doubt it will be accepted that way but can't think
of any other way..
Sebastian
--
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