Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 3/3] clk: introduce CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF flag
From: Lee Jones
Date: Tue Aug 11 2015 - 08:03:34 EST
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 08/11/2015 01:36 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> >> On 08/11/2015 12:11 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Maxime Coquelin
> >>> <maxime.coquelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> How can we pass CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF flag to a specific clock on STi
> >>>> platform?
> >>> Add the flag to the relevant clocks in the C code, e.g. in
> >>> clk_register_flexgen():
> >>> if (!strcmp(name, "clk-icn-cpu"))
> >>> init.flags |= CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF;
> > The main problem I see with this proposal is that clk_register_flexgen() is
> > called for several SoCs (STiH407/410/418...).
> > Each of these SoCs have this clock, but maybe STiH407 will need the flag,
> > but not STiH410 and STiH418.
> > So I think the best place to set this information is in DT, where the
> > differentiation is made between the SoCs.
> If (of_machine_is_compatible("st,stih410")) ...
This is getting very messy.
Ideally we'd like to keep platform code out of device drivers.
Critical clock description belongs in DT for our use-case. We can
write code to extract the information from there and set the flag is
Mike's solution is deemed appropriate.
With regards to your "Software Policy Vs Hardware Description"
comment; we already have 10's of "Software Policy" bindings which do
not describe hardware in the purest sense; frequency specifications,
line/voltage levels, GPIO configuration, the list goes on.
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/