lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] ARM: dts: Device tree for AXM55xx.
From
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 17:20:47 Anders Berg wrote:
>> > > + gpio0: gpio@2010092000 {
>> > > + #gpio-cells = <2>;
>> > > + compatible = "arm,pl061", "arm,primecell";
>> > > + gpio-controller;
>> > > + reg = <0x20 0x10092000 0x00 0x1000>;
>> > > + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 10 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> > > + <GIC_SPI 11 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> > > + <GIC_SPI 12 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> > > + <GIC_SPI 13 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> > > + <GIC_SPI 14 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> > > + <GIC_SPI 15 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> > > + <GIC_SPI 16 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> > > + <GIC_SPI 17 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> > > + clocks = <&clk_per>;
>> > > + clock-names = "apb_pclk";
>> > > + status = "disabled";
>> >
>> > The pl061 binding does not specify any clocks at all. Do we need to update
>> > that?
>>
>> Doesn't all AMBA devices need at least one apb_pclk since the bus driver does
>> clk_get(...,"apb_pclk") before calling probe()?
>
> Yes, I was mostly wondering whether we had a policy about whether this clock
> should also be listed in the binding or not. My feeling is that it's better
> to make that explicit.

A separate patch to the GPIO maintainer for this will be accepted. :-)

Yours,
Linus Walleij


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-22 23:41    [W:0.042 / U:94.012 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site