linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: dt: bindings: TI WiLink modules

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

Message-ID: <20130628102145.GB2139@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:21:45 +0100
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Luciano Coelho <coelho@...com>
Cc:	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm@...r.kernel.org>,
	mturquette@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: dt: bindings: TI WiLink modules

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> > > +Optional properties:
> > > +--------------------
> > > +
> > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for
> > > +  WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8).  Must be one of the
> > > +  following:
> > > +	0 = 19.2 MHz
> > > +	1 = 26.0 MHz
> > > +	2 = 38.4 MHz
> > > +	3 = 52.0 MHz
> > > +	4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL
> > > +	5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL
> > > +
> > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for
> > > +  WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8).  Must be one of the
> > > +  following:
> > > +	0 = 19.200 MHz
> > > +	1 = 26.000 MHz
> > > +	2 = 38.400 MHz
> > > +	3 = 52.000 MHz
> > > +	4 = 16.368 MHz
> > > +	5 = 32.736 MHz
> > > +	6 = 16.800 MHz
> > > +	7 = 33.600 MHz
> > 
> > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for:
> > 
> > refclk {
> > 	compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > 	#clock-cells = <0>;
> > 	clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> > }
> > 
> > wilink {
> > 	compatible = "ti,wilink7";
> > 	interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>;
> > 	interrupts = <0 1 1>;
> > 	clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>;
> > 	clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk";
> > };
> > 
> > Could you not use them?
> 
> Hmmm... this actually does look good.  But these are internal clocks in
> the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside.  Does it make sense
> to register them with the clock framework?

Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I think it
makes sense to use it -- people already understand the common bindings,
and it's less code to add add to the kernel. I don't think the fact
these clocks are internal should prevent us from describing them as we
would an external clock.

Perhaps Mike Turquette [Cc'd] has an opinion on the matter. 

Thanks,
Mark.
--
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/