linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Common clock framework for external clock generators

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:16:39 +0200
From:	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Mack <zonque@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...com>,
	linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Common clock framework for external clock generators

On 10/14/2012 01:13 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> I think the sub-node style above it nicer because it allows referencing
> the individual clocks outputs with a phandle. We use this chip to
> generate base-frequencies for audio clocks, and so we have to switch
> between two freqs for the multiples of 22.5KHz and 24KHz at runtime.

Both examples allow you to have a phandle for all individual clock-outputs.
The examples weren't complete but with the sub-node style you'll reference
with e.g. <&clkout0> while the flat one will use <&si5351 0>. I still prefer
the flat-style as it will not allow to have a phandle of plls.

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/