Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 09 Dec 2013 18:02:21 +0100 | From | boris brezillon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] ARM: at91/dt: define sama5d3 clocks |
| |
On 09/12/2013 17:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 09 December 2013, boris brezillon wrote: >> Hello Arnd, >> >> On 09/12/2013 16:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Monday 09 December 2013, boris brezillon wrote: >>>>> You are adding "clock-names" properties in a lot of cases. Are you sure you >>>>> are using the strings that are documented in the respective device bindings >>>>> for each name? In a lot of cases, drivers just want an anonymous clock >>>>> and we don't name them. >>>> I rechecked it, and almost all drivers call [devm_]clk_get with a >>>> specific clock >>>> name, and as a result we must specify the "clock-names" property. >>>> The only exceptions I found are the spi and PIT (Periodic Interval >>>> Timer) drivers, >>>> and "clock-names" property is not defined in these nodes. >>> Yes, I understood that the *drivers* use the names, but are they actually >>> documented in the device bindings? If not, it might be better to change the >>> drivers. >> We have to keep both clk system working for at91 platform (new CCF based >> clk implementations and old clk implementations) for two reasons: >> 1) the new clk implemetations are only compatible with DT enabled boards >> and some at91 boards are not yet ported to DT. >> 2) we decided to move to the new clk implementations in multiple steps >> (one SoC >> family after another) in order to ease PATCH review. >> >> If we change the drivers to avoid specific clock name request >> ([devm]_clk_get(dev, NULL)), >> we will have to change the old static clk lookup tables >> (i.e. >> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c#L226, >> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260.c#L202, >> ...). > Yes, that is a bit painful, but we really need to ensure that the drivers > implement the documented binding. If they don't match we have to either > review and change all the binding documents, or change the static clock > tables and the drivers. > > Note that I have not checked your binding documents for the devices in > question. If they already document these names, we don't need to change > anything.
Are you talking about drivers or clk binding documentation ? In either cases they're not defined :-), but I'd like to know which file(s) I should update.
I'd rather not change the static clock lookup tables, but if you prefer this approach (and Nicolas agrees), I'll propose a series modifying the drivers and clk lookup table.
Whatever solution is choosen, I guess I'll have to update the drivers dt binding documentation anyway ;-).
Best Regards,
Boris
> > Arnd
| |