[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8b164c2f-b7b9-c5df-3b9c-ea39bd3eb424@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 14:41:44 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Li Chen <me@...ux.beauty>
Cc: li chen <lchen@...arella.com>,
michael turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
stephen boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
rob herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
krzysztof kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"moderated list:arm/ambarella soc support"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:common clk framework" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:open firmware and flattened device tree bindings"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
arnd bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/15] dt-bindings: clock: Add Ambarella clock bindings
On 06/02/2023 12:28, Li Chen wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof ,
>
> ---- On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 23:08:09 +0800 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote ---
> > On 27/01/2023 15:48, Li Chen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > but what you are saying is that there is no separate clock controller
> > > > device with its own IO address but these clocks are part of rct_syscon.
> > > > Then model it that way in DTS. The rct_syscon is then your clock
> > > > controller and all these fake gclk-core and gclk-ddr nodes should be gone.
> > >
> > > Ok, I will remove these fake nodes, and model the hardware as:
> > >
> > > rct_syscon node
> > > | clock node(pll, div, mux, composite clocks live in the same driver)
> > > | other periphal nodes
> >
> > You need clock node if it takes any resources. If it doesn't, you do not
> > need it.
>
> If the only hardware resource the clock node can take is its parent clock(clocks = <&osc>;),
> then can I have this clock node?
I am not sure if I understand. osc does not look like parent device, so
this part of comment confuses me.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists