Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:15:51 +0400 | From | Dmitry <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/6] Clocklib: Use correct clock for IrDA on pxa |
| |
Hi,
2008/4/8, Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:47:35PM +0400, Dmitry wrote: > > Yes, it works currently. But there are a few problems: we declare > > STUART's UARTCLK with dev=NULL (all other UARTCLKs are declared with > > proper devices). Therefore, I consider it as a hack and would like > > to remove it. > > > I don't consider it a hack at all - it's a work around for the fact > that the PXA FIR driver shares the UART, but the FIR driver doesn't > bind to the UART itself.
Would you then accept the patch that still contains UARTCLK bound to pxa uart device, and IrDA requesting clock STUARTCLK?
> The _real_ issue is with IrDA itself, and is larger than just the > clock library. Any serial port which supports IrDA, even on x86, > has to be shared between the serial driver and the IrDA driver - > there's no way for them to quietly co-exist and "just work" as > requested.
Yes. I wonder how this is solved in other platforms. > > So, let's not work around the short comings of Serial/IrDA interactions > by adding additional complexity to random other layers which _shouldn't_ > even be seeing the issue. > > In addition, the point of the clock framework is that you ask for the > device plus clock NAME on _that_ device. Inventing random other names > for the same physical clock on the same physical device is just nonsense - > even more so than the existing workaround.
See my proposition above. I highly dislike the UARTCLK w/o device declared. Once it has already lead me to (small) problems due to messed other UARTCLKs declarations on pxa25x.
-- With best wishes Dmitry
| |