[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <158474728076.125146.11401827374115414324@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:34:40 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Wesley Cheng <wcheng@...eaurora.org>, agross@...nel.org,
bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, mark.rutland@....com,
mturquette@...libre.com, robh+dt@...nel.org
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Wesley Cheng <wcheng@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] clk: qcom: gcc: Add USB3 PIPE clock and GDSC for SM8150
Quoting Wesley Cheng (2020-03-17 13:53:31)
> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.h
> index 90d60ef..3e1a918 100644
> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.h
> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.h
> @@ -240,4 +240,8 @@
> #define GCC_USB30_SEC_BCR 27
> #define GCC_USB_PHY_CFG_AHB2PHY_BCR 28
>
> +/* GCC GDSCRs */
> +#define USB30_PRIM_GDSC 4
> +#define USB30_SEC_GDSC 5
BTW, should we expect more GDSCs at 0,1,2,3 here? Why wasn't that done
initially?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists