[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150122192649.GC14880@katana>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:26:49 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Korsgaard <peter@...sgaard.com>,
Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c-ocores: add common clock support
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:15:40PM +0300, Max Filippov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> wrote:
> > My suggestion is:
> >
> > 1) if there is a clk node:
> > - we get the clock rate via clock framework
> > - "clock-frequency" is describing the bus speed as usual (Note
> > that parsing here can be as simple as checking for 100kHz only.
> > Although a seperate patch could probably easily add support for
> > other bus speeds to)
> >
> > 2?) a new binding is present to specify the IP clock speed:
> > - is this needed? is somebody using the driver without CCF?
> > - if so, the new binding is parsed and evaluated
> > - I couldn't find an existing binding to specify a clock speed.
> > Please have a look, too. Otherwise we need to introduce sth
> > like "opencores,ip-clock-khz" probably.
> > - "clock-frequency" is describing the bus speed as usual
> >
> > 3) only "clock-frequency" is present:
> > - we keep the current behaviour to be backwards compatible.
> > - driver should emit a warning to convert to new style
> > - must be marked deprecated everywhere
> >
> > The documentation should be updated accordingly.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I can update my patch to do (1) and (3), leaving (2) to whoever may
> need that.
Please implement (2) as well. Otherwise we would have documented
ambiguity of "clock-frequency" which is bad. It shouldn't be much code.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists