[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120614084904.GF31565@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:49:06 +0800
From: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
To: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
CC: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <mturquette@...aro.org>,
<s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
<skannan@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] DT clock bindings
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:23:18AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> Right. This is why I have reposted and copied those whom commented on my
> pull request. I think at least some of Saravana's concerns boiled down
> to not requiring using DT clock bindings and not requiring driver
> changes to move to DT bindings. Both of these are met with this series.
> A platform can still use clkdev tables for binding clocks to devices and
> does not have to use DT for clocks. Drivers generally should not require
> any changes that I'm aware of, but if there are any concrete examples
> I'd like to know.
>
> Yes, I think this should go thru you.
>
I still have a little doubt about how this binding will best work for
imx clock. I'm trying to cook a RFC patch discussing.
--
Regards,
Shawn
--
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