[PATCH 3/6] arm/imx6q: add core drivers clock, gpc, mmdc and src

[Grant Likely]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:28:27PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 12 September 2011 13:40:33 Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:12:02AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:56:21AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 07 September 2011 14:05:03 Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > > > > My feeling is that this time, we should wait for the common clock
> > > > > > framework to get in and simplify this. I believe Thomas is now planning
> > > > > > to do this, but I haven't followed what the current state is.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > Sadly, if this is the position of entire arm-soc maintainer group,
> > > > > I think I have made a wrong decision to start upstreaming imx6q now.
> > > > 
> > > > We haven't discussed it as a group, it's my own opinion.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Thomas, Grant,
> > > 
> > > Could you please share your opinion here?
> > > 
> > > I really do not see the hope that clock framework and device tree
> > > binding could possibly catch v3.2 window, while I'm hoping that imx6q
> > > series can go into v3.2.
> > > 
> > > Can you please agree that we can let the imx6q clock code in and then
> > > migrate it to clock framework and device tree once they get ready?
> > 
> > I've not looked very deeply at this patch, but I completely agree that
> > we cannot block new platforms on infrastructure that isn't remotely
> > mergable at this point in time.
> > 
> > However, imx6 is a new platform.  There isn't any non-DT board support
> > code to continue to support.  At the very least, the configurable
> > parameters, like what is passed into mx6q_clocks_init() should be
> > obtained from the device tree (maybe it already does this though, I
> > haven't looked that closely).
> > 
> > In general, I say merge it.
> 
> Ok, thanks for taking a look. Do you believe that the clock binding is any
> closer to being finalized than the actual code implementing it? I think

Amit is assigning a Linaro engineer to look at it, and there will be a
conference call later this week to look over the work that has been
done with an eye to getting something ready to be merged.  Hopefully
with a full time engineer things will start moving forward again.  We
had a meeting about it at LPC last week.

> it would be very helpful to at least put all the clock related settings
> into the device tree in a way that is going to be stable, even if the
> code is still in flux.
> 
> Moreover, if we have a binding document, we can start implementing code
> for one platform and then generalize it later.

Yes, a binding would be useful, but I still expect that things will be
in flux during these early stages, so there will be some room to
modify insufficient early bindings.

g.