[PATCH v3 0/4] clk: st: New always-on clock domain
robert.jarzmik at free.fr
Mon Mar 2 03:29:07 PST 2015
Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org> writes:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>> Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org> writes:
>> it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it
>> says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to
>> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied.
> Well that is exactly what we're doing. Is there an issue with that?
> This is a way to do it at a platform level. It means we can support
> multiple platforms where clocksources have been switched around
> without writing new driver code in drivers/clk/st.
> If you have something else in mind, let me know.
>> 2) I still fail to see why this is necessary
>> IOW why declaring the mandatory always-on clocks with the proper flag should
>> be augmented with a new clock list. Isn't the existing flag the generic way
> I'm not sure what you mean by this, would you be able to expland a
>> I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, that's why I'm
> Please bear in mind that we don't supply our clocks statically. All
> of the information is extracted from DT, so if the always-on
> information does reside in there, where do you propose it comes from?
I thought the standard clock binding provided a way to set this flag. Now I
crosschecked the binding, it doesn't ...
My point was I didn't want the flag to be settable from 2 different places,
where consistency was to be kept across different device-tree leafs.
> We could just write this code inside our own driver and apply the
> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED at a local level, but that's not the generic
> solution I am searching for.
All right, I'm convinced now I undertand the flag was not settable from
devicetree binding before this patchset.
You can add to patch 3/4 :
Reviewed-by: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik at free.fr>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel