Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: exynos4: Add alias for cpufreq related clocks

From: Tushar Behera
Date: Mon Jun 17 2013 - 00:51:20 EST

On 06/11/2013 12:23 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Monday 10 of June 2013 09:13:11 Tushar Behera wrote:
>> On 06/08/2013 05:20 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> On Thursday 06 of June 2013 16:52:28 Tushar Behera wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>> MUX_A(mout_core, "mout_core", mout_core_p4210,
>>>> - SRC_CPU, 16, 1, "mout_core"),
>>>> + SRC_CPU, 16, 1, "moutcore"),
>>> IMHO those typo corrections are not part of this patch.
>> But the older drivers (before migration to CCF) were using the clock
>> "moutcore" (not "mout_core").
> I mean, this should be placed in a separate patch, as this change is not
> "adding alias for cpufreq related clocks", but rather fixing a typo.

Is it ok if I split this patch into 2, one adding clock alias
'mout_apll' and another one fixing the alias names 'mout_mpll',
'moutcore' and 'armclk'?

[ ... ]

>>> Basically I don't like the idea of those global aliases, which IMHO
>>> should be completely dropped. Someone might not like it, but I'd go
>>> with the conversion of our cpufreq drivers to platform drivers
>>> instead, which could receive things like clocks and regulators using
>>> DT-based lookups.
>> I agree. Migration of exynos-cpufreq driver as a platform driver is the
>> best solution. But unless someone picks up that work, cpufreq support
>> for EXYNOS4 based systems is broken because of the incorrect clock
>> aliases.
> We have patches for this in our internal tree. I will clean them up a bit
> and submit soon.

If you are going to submit the cpufreq driver patches for v3.11, then we
can ignore this patchset. Otherwise, I would prefer to get these patches
merged for v3.11 to get cpufreq working. Once the driver changes are
incorporated, we can very well modify these later.

Tushar Behera
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at