lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 19/19] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64
Date
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:00:25 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> +Clocks
> +------
> +
> +Like clocks that are part of the power resources there is no standard way
> +to represent a clock tree in ACPI 5.1 in a similar manner to how it is
> +described in DT.
> +
> +Devices affected by this include things like UARTs, SoC driven LCD displays,
> +etc.
> +
> +The firmware for example UEFI should initialise these clocks to fixed working
> +values before the kernel is executed. If a driver requires to know rates of
> +clocks set by firmware then they can be passed to kernel using _DSD.
> +
> +example :-
> +
> +Device (CLK0) {
> + ...
> +
> + Name (_DSD, Package() {
> + ToUUID("XXXXX"),
> + Package() {
> + Package(2) {"#clock-cells", 0},
> + Package(2) {"clock-frequency", "10000"}
> + }
> + })
> +
> + ...
> +}
> +
> +Device (USR1) {
> + ...
> +
> + Name (_DSD, Package() {
> + ToUUID("XXXXX"),
> + Package() {
> + Package(2) {"clocks", Package() {1, ^CLK0}}},
> + }
> + })
> +
> + ...
> +}

Really? This looks wrong. The above example goes right back to
conceptually putting the clock tree into ACPI. I would expect the ACPI
way to expose current clock rate to an individual device driver is to
expose a clock rate method that internally knows how to return the
currently set rate.

g.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-08-20 19:21    [W:0.670 / U:8.864 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site