On Wednesday 21 of August 2013 09:50:15 Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 01:06:25AM +0100, Mike Turquette wrote: > > Quoting Mark Rutland (2013-08-19 02:35:43) > > > > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 04:17:18PM +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > > On Saturday 17 of August 2013 16:53:16 Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 02:28:04PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > > > > > > > Also I would make this option required. Use a dummy > > > > > > > > > clock for > > > > > > > > > mux > > > > > > > > > inputs that are grounded for a specific SoC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some clocks are not from CCM and we haven't defined in > > > > > > > > imx6q-clk.txt, > > > > > > > > so in most cases we can't provide a phandle for them, eg: > > > > > > > > spdif_ext. > > > > > > > > I think it's a bit hard to force it to be 'required'. An > > > > > > > > 'optional' > > > > > > > > looks more flexible to me and a default one is ensured > > > > > > > > even if > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > missing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <&clks 0> is the dummy clock. This can be used for all input > > > > > > > clocks > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > defined by the SoC. > > > > > > > > > > > > Where does this assumption come from? Is it documented > > > > > > anywhere? > > > > > > > > > > This is how all i.MX clock bindings currently are. See > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx*-clock.txt > > > > > > > > OK, thanks. > > > > > > > > I guess we need some discussion on dummy clocks vs skipped clocks. > > > > I think we want some consistency on this, don't we? > > > > > > > > If we really need a dummy clock, then we might also want a generic > > > > way to specify it. > > > > > > What do we actually mean by a "dummy clock"? We already have > > > bindings > > > for "fixed-clock" and co friends describe relatively simple > > > preconfigured clocks. > > > > Some platforms have a fake clock which defines noops callbacks and > > basically doesn't do anything. This is analogous to the dummy > > regulator > > implementation. A central one could be registered by the clock core, > > as > > is done by the regulator core. > > When you say some platforms, you presumably mean the platform code in > Linux? A dummy clock sounds like a completely Linux-specific abstraction > rather than a description of the hardware, and I don't see why we need > that in the DT: > > * If a clock is wired up and running (as presumably the dummy clock is), > then surely it's a fixed-clock (it's running, we and we have no control > over it, but we presumably know its rate) and can be described as such? > > * If no clock is wired up, then we should be able to describe that. If a > driver believes that a clock is required when it isn't (for some level > of functionality), then that driver should be fixed up to support the > clock as being optional. > > Am I missing something? I second that. Moreover, I don't think that device tree should deal with dummy anything. It should be able to describe hardware that is available on given system, not list what hardware is not available. Best regards, Tomasz -- 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
