[PATCH v5 3/3] ARM: dts: igep00x0: add wl18xx bindings

Arnd Bergmann arnd at arndb.de
Wed Mar 11 06:13:59 PDT 2015

On Wednesday 11 March 2015 14:12:54 Eliad Peller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> <javier at dowhile0.org> wrote:
> > I think that patch [0] should not be needed since for external clocks,
> > the IP providing the clocks should have its own clock driver and for
> > internal clocks, a property should be used instead as you said.
> >
> >> If there is no external clock provider for this chip and the clocks
> >> are provided by the device itself, then all we need is a clock-frequency
> >> property in the device node.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed, IIUC Luciano wanted to expose the internal clocks by
> > registering in the common clock framework but if those clocks are not
> > really accessible from outside the wlan chip, then I also think that a
> > device node property should be used instead.
> >
> how should i describe multiple clock-frequency properties (there are 2
> relevant clocks) in this case?
> does something like the following makes sense?
> wlcore: wlcore at 2 {
>     ...
>     refclock: refclock {
>         compatible = "fixed-clock";
>         #clock-cells = <0>;
>         clock-frequency = <38400000>;
>     };
> }

I would put that clock node on the top level of the DT, as you are
describing an external clock input here, but other than that, it looks

I would do the binding in a way that mandates either a "clocks"
reference to an external clock provider in case of a XTAL or
a "clock-frequency" property. In the first case, you can use
the "clock-names" property to identify the "ref" and "txco"
clock inputs, in the second case we could either decide
to have a single property with two cells, or have named
properties like

	wlcore at 2 {
		interrupts = < ... >;
		tcxo-clock-frequency = <38400000>;
		ref-clock-frequency = <19200000>;

I don't know which combinations are possible here. I did notice
that most of the references in the board hacks use '0' as the
tcxo clock value, which happens to be the same as
WL12XX_TCXOCLOCK_19_2, but could also meant that no tcxo clock
is used.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list