| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150322171009.7930.25481@quantum> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:10:09 -0700 From: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org> To: Sergej Sawazki <ce3a@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: clk: dt: bindings for mux-clock Quoting Sergej Sawazki (2015-03-19 14:50:50) > Hi Mike, > > I came across your "[PATCH v2 0/5] clk: dt: bindings for mux, divider & > gate clocks" email from 16 Jun 2013. The DT bindings for simple clock > multiplexers would be very helpful for a board I am working on. Do you > see any chance to get it into mainline? Hi Sergej, I abandoned those binding a while back. The reason is that those are one-node-per-clock bindings, which are unpopular with the DT crowd. Instead most bindings today use a single node to represent a clock provider, which maps onto a clock driver in Linux. Is your clock provider made up of only a single clock? If so then the bindings you mentioned above may be appropriate. But if you have a clock controller IP block that manages several clocks then it is better for you to follow the clock provider binding style. There is no shortage of good examples on how to do this. See the QCOM, Samsung and Nvidia bindings for ideas. Regards, Mike > > Many thanks in advance! > Regards, > Sergej -- 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