[PATCH] Documentation: dt: bindings: TI WiLink modules

[Luciano Coelho]

On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:31 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> (fixed Mike's address)
> 
> On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:21 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> > > > > +Optional properties:
> > > > > +--------------------
> > > > > +
> > > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency (required for
> > > > > +  WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8).  Must be one of the
> > > > > +  following:
> > > > > +	0 = 19.2 MHz
> > > > > +	1 = 26.0 MHz
> > > > > +	2 = 38.4 MHz
> > > > > +	3 = 52.0 MHz
> > > > > +	4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL
> > > > > +	5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL
> > > > > +
> > > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency (required for
> > > > > +  WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8).  Must be one of the
> > > > > +  following:
> > > > > +	0 = 19.200 MHz
> > > > > +	1 = 26.000 MHz
> > > > > +	2 = 38.400 MHz
> > > > > +	3 = 52.000 MHz
> > > > > +	4 = 16.368 MHz
> > > > > +	5 = 32.736 MHz
> > > > > +	6 = 16.800 MHz
> > > > > +	7 = 33.600 MHz
> > > > 
> > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock bindings for:
> > > > 
> > > > refclk {
> > > > 	compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > > 	#clock-cells = <0>;
> > > > 	clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > wilink {
> > > > 	compatible = "ti,wilink7";
> > > > 	interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>;
> > > > 	interrupts = <0 1 1>;
> > > > 	clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>;
> > > > 	clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk";
> > > > };
> > > > 
> > > > Could you not use them?
> > > 
> > > Hmmm... this actually does look good.  But these are internal clocks in
> > > the modules, they cannot be accessed from outside.  Does it make sense
> > > to register them with the clock framework?
> > 
> > Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I think it
> > makes sense to use it -- people already understand the common bindings,
> > and it's less code to add add to the kernel. I don't think the fact
> > these clocks are internal should prevent us from describing them as we
> > would an external clock.
> 
> Yes, I agree with you.  Thanks for the suggestion! I think it will look
> much better.  And now that I dug a bit more into the code, I can see
> that there are only structs being populated, so there shouldn't be any
> other side-effects.

Hmmm, one thing that escaped me.  Besides the frequency, I also need a
boolean that tells if the clock is XTAL or not.  I can't figure out how
to pass this if I use the generic clock framework.  Any suggestions?

--
Luca.