[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYLB-_JjEd69vVub_Z3L+avQRrFBt1fGuyR0D_owcLWvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:13:19 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@...com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linus WALLEIJ <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Srinidhi KASAGAR <srinidhi.kasagar@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: dbx500-prcmu: Correctly reorder PRCMU clock identifiers
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> ... as stipulated by the Hardware Specification document.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
I think you need Ulf (as ux500 clock author) and Loic (as PRCMU
developer) to have a look at this.
> -enum prcmu_clock {
> - PRCMU_SGACLK,
(...)
> +#define ARMCLK 0
> +#define PRCMU_ACLK 1
(...)
It seems the enum and the defines want to do two different things?
The first is a kernel-internal representation of the clocks, whereas
the latter is a HW-centric representation for a certain PRCMU
variant (I guess?)
Does one actually exclude the other?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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