[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:54:01 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Cc: mturquette@...aro.org, james.hogan@...tec.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
luca@...lho.fi,
Linux ARM Kernel Mailing List
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: add flags to distinguish xtal clocks
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:42:47PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > + if (of_property_read_bool(node, "clock-xtal"))
> > > + flags |= CLK_IS_TYPE_XTAL;
> > > +
> >
> > Introducing a new compatible instead of a property would make more
> > sense here I think.
> >
> > Do you have a reason not to do so?
>
> As you can see, this is original work from Luca but I disagree that
> adding a new compatible makes more sense. This still related to a fixed
> rate clock, we're just giving it one extra metadata which will
> differentiate between crystal and oscilator fixed rate clocks.
I don't know, I think it's more a matter of consistency.
If we turn the problem the other way around. Let's say we have a
crystal that for some reason can't be used with clk-fixed-rate. You'd
add a new driver for it, with a compatible of its own, and you'd put
that XTAL flag in there, without any extra metadata in the DT, right?
And I'm pretty sure having a compatible like "clk-xtal" would make it
pretty obvious that it's still a fixed rate clock.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists