[PATCH] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Correct TMU clock support again

[Simon Horman]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 08:12:24PM -0800, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> 
> Hi Magnus, Simon
> 
> Thank you for your explain
> 
> > >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > >> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] = {
> > >>       CLKDEV_DEV_ID("ehci-platform.0", &mstp_clks[MSTP100]), /* USB EHCI port0/1 */
> > >>       CLKDEV_DEV_ID("ohci-platform.0", &mstp_clks[MSTP100]), /* USB OHCI port0/1 */
> > >>       CLKDEV_DEV_ID("sh_tmu.0", &mstp_clks[MSTP016]), /* TMU00 */
> > >> -     CLKDEV_DEV_ID("sh_tmu.1", &mstp_clks[MSTP015]), /* TMU01 */
> > >> +     CLKDEV_DEV_ID("sh_tmu.1", &mstp_clks[MSTP016]), /* TMU01 */
> > >>       CLKDEV_DEV_ID("sh_tmu.2", &mstp_clks[MSTP014]), /* TMU02 */
> > >>       CLKDEV_DEV_ID("i2c-rcar.0", &mstp_clks[MSTP030]), /* I2C0 */
> > >>       CLKDEV_DEV_ID("i2c-rcar.1", &mstp_clks[MSTP029]), /* I2C1 */
> > >
> > > Really ???
> > > Is MSTP value of TMU01 same as TMU00 ?
> > 
> > Usually, the TMU channels are bundled together. So TMU00 may be for
> > channel 0->3 and TMU01 for 4->6.
> 
> This means that current TMU02 numbering seems doubtful too ?
> How about just rever 58079fa7d54a0929d304054ee759187a2ccd3cdf ?

Perhaps that is a good idea.

The original motivation for this patch was to add the TMU02 line.
And "fixing" TMU01 was an afterthought. However, I am also
now doubtful about the correctness of the TMU02 line and thus
the usefulness of the original patch.