[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181127083523.pciie2gyaplrwiey@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 09:35:23 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
Cc: Hao Zhang <hao5781286@...il.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, wens@...e.org, mturquette@...libre.com,
sboyd@...nel.org, thierry.reding@...il.com,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] Documentation: ARM: sunxi: pwm: add Allwinner
sun8i.
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:52:26AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:18:59AM +0800, Hao Zhang wrote:
> > + - clocks: From common clock binding, handle to the parent clock.
> > + - clock-names: Must contain the clock names described just above.
>
> [...]
>
> You seem to have used mux-0 and mux-1 for the clock names. I guess we
> don't have to use a name there, we can simply use the position to find
> out (as long as it's documented in the binding)
I also wondered if the driver relies on the fact that the second clock
is the faster running one. Is this sensible?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists