[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140430211635.GF20486@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:16:35 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] devicetree: bindings: qcom,mmcc: Document GDSC
binding
On 04/29, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Boyd (2014-04-04 11:45:36)
> > +Example:
> > + clock-controller@...0000 {
> > + compatible = "qcom,mmcc-msm8974";
> > + reg = <0x4000000 0x1000>;
> > + #clock-cells = <1>;
> > + #reset-cells = <1>;
> > +
> > + regulators {
> > + gdsc_oxili_gx: gdsc_oxili_gx {
> > + regulator-name = "gdsc_oxili_gx";
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> It makes sense to model the gdsc's as regulators. It also makes sense to
> nest them within the clock-controller node, assuming that matches the
> register manual for your part.
>
> However, does it make sense to put this new code under drivers/clk/qcom?
> I don't see a compelling reason. How about breaking the registers out
> into a header for easier reuse?
What registers are we talking about? I put this under
drivers/clk/qcom because it's one device that happens to have all
these different driver subsystems in it (clocks, reset, gdsc).
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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