[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdZiRZj05Wd3YKJO5hzXOMVJ0qESANEa=8LCGR=tn2AK7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:54:51 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@...com>,
"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>,
Par-Olof Hakansson <par-olof.hakansson@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: dbx500-prcmu: Correctly reorder PRCMU clock identifiers
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
>> > -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?
>
> From what I can tell, they're non-ordered values which are used as
> read-ins to the clk_mgt array. So long as they are unique I'm not sure
> the order matters. The current order seems 'made up', unless I'm
> mistaken.
Hm, I suspect it might be something to do with the enumeration
inside the PRCMU firmware, but I don't really know. In that case it
could affect the message marshalling, but let's call out the experts...
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