[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <513AF24A.2070200@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 09:26:50 +0100
From: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
To: Daniel Mack <zonque@...il.com>
CC: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Afzal Mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Question about fixed-clock
On 03/08/2013 02:30 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On 08.03.2013 03:15, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:31:59PM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote:
>>> On 07.03.2013 19:42, Afzal Mohammed wrote:
>>> Grep'ing through arch/arm, it seems that the imx arch does the same
>>> thing my patch does, but I could also imagine that it should be done
>>> somewhere from the DT core. I copied Grant, Rob and Mark for more comments.
>>
>> Wouldn't this just be set up by the DT in the same way that other
>> off-SoC hardware is?
>
> [...]
>
> I don't know the clock framework well enough, but it seems that either
> all DT boards are supposed to do the same in their generic bits (which
> sounds like a lot of code duplication), or the fixed-clock driver should
> behave like any other driver wrt its probing from DT. I'm open to
> suggestions :)
Daniel,
the current common clock framework does not register any of its "core"
clocks, i.e. fixed-clock, et.al. I haven't had a look at the way regulator
api registers them. But if you find the way reasonable, why not propose
a patch for ccf that registers at least a set of the core clocks itself?
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