[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1372415514.21065.50.camel@cumari.coelho.fi>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:31:54 +0300
From: Luciano Coelho <coelho@...com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, <mturquette@...aro.org>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: dt: bindings: TI WiLink modules
(fixed Mike's address)
On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:21 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 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.
Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for the suggestion! I think it will look
much better. And now that I dug a bit more into the code, I can see
that there are only structs being populated, so there shouldn't be any
other side-effects.
> Perhaps Mike Turquette [Cc'd] has an opinion on the matter.
Experts' opinions are appreciated. :)
--
Luca.
--
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