Re: [PATCH] spi: tegra114: add spi driver

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:36:41AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 10:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Since we can extend the list of clocks it doesn't seem like there's
> > much issue here, especially if some of them are optional?

> Yes, there's certainly a way to extend the binding in a
> backwards-compatible way.

> However, I have seen in Rob and/or Grant push back on not fully
> defining bindings in the past - i.e. actively planning to initially
> create a minimal binding and extend it in the future, rather than
> completely defining it up-front.

That sounds like the current stuff with a minimal definition is OK?

> > Though in general it seems like this sort of mux really should be
> > in the clock stuff anyway.

> How do you see that working: something automatic inside clk_set_rate()
> seeing that some other parent could provide the rate, so the clock
> could be reparented, or ...?

That'd certainly be nice as a feature, but it'd also be good to just be
able to define this sort of multi-parent mux in a generic way in DT
since it's pretty common even if the actual implementation of picking a
parent ends up getting open coded in individual drivers.  A library
function might also be a way of handling it short term.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature