[RFC 17/17] clk: zynq: remove call to of_clk_init

[Steffen Trumtrar]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 08:16:29AM -0700, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 02:53:35PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> > On 08/26/13 14:07, Steffen Trumtrar wrote:
> > >On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 01:15:11PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> > >>I agree with Soren - let's fix the current problem and then when Steffen has patches with syscon
> > >>we can look at them.
> > >>
> > >>If there is any discussion about early syscon registration please let me know.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Where I'm stuck at the moment is: if I map the whole register space to the
> > >parent node, how do I get its mapped address in the clkc?
> > 
> > Steffen,
> > 
> > if slcr is such an essential part of the SoC, you can choose to provide
> > zynq_slcr_readl/writel callbacks. You can then use those callback in the
> > clock driver without knowing the base address. Also, it allows you to
> > hide slcr specific locking details from subsequent drivers using the
> > callbacks.
> 
> I don't think that'll work. The clkc just wraps the cock primitives and
> does not provide a lot of own clock drivers - actually only one. Those
> clock primitives receive an iomapped address for the clock control which
> is then accessed using readl/writel(). So, wrapping all SLCR accesses in
> special accessors would mean to have almost identical reimplementations
> of all used clock primitives, just to replace readl/writel with
> zynq_slcr_write/read. Or is there some way to make this actually work?

This is exactly my understanding, why I can't use a callback here. At least
not for the clkc.

str

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |