On 08/15/2013 03:24 AM, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:18:23AM +0800, Nicolin Chen wrote: >> Hi Stephen, >> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 09:47:19AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> If the clock source name list is different, then it needs a different >>> compatible value, so that each compatible value can specify which clock >>> names are required. >>> >>> Also, the compatible value itself should always include the exact HW >>> that's present (most specific HW version), as well as any other HW it's >>> compatible with. >> >> Thank you for the comments. Yes, I did so in v1-v3, but after rethinking >> about the situation (Actually both the HW version and the clock mux itself >> are same, just the clock sources connecting to the mux might be different), >> so I decided to do this by abstracting the driver from those source info >> and letting DT binding to pass such information. Because I think putting >> the clock sources into the driver differed by compatible value would make >> the driver more like SoC-specified, not the ideal way -- SoC-independent, >> since the clock sources are based on SoC design, not on itself. > > +1 > > It's pretty much the differences at SoC integration level not the IP > itself, and it just happens to be handled in a register of the IP. OK, if the difference are the sources of the clocks and not the set of clocks, then there's no issue. I can't remember what triggered my comments above, but obviously it wasn't clear that this was the case. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
