[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1437965782.5614.4.camel@mtksdaap41>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:56:22 +0800
From: James Liao <jamesjj.liao@...iatek.com>
To: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>
CC: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
"Heiko Stubner" <heiko@...ech.de>,
srv_heupstream <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>,
Ricky Liang <jcliang@...omium.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND..." <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] arm64: dts: mt8173: Add subsystem clock
controller device nodes
Hi Daniel,
On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 19:32 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > @@ -88,6 +88,13 @@
> > #clock-cells = <0>;
> > };
> >
> > + cpum_ck: dummy_clk {
>
> I'm not a big fan of this "dummy_clk".
> The 'name' part of the devicetree node is supposed to be generic.
> So, perhaps just oscillator@2, and move it down below clk32k: oscillator@1.
> Otherwise:
cpum_ck is a test clock which only available in IC test. It's empty on
MT8173 evaluation or production boards. Should we name this kind of
empty clock as an oscillator? Or is there a better name for it?
Best regards,
James
--
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