On 08/27/2013 08:17 PM, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> On 27 August 2013 00:48, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 08/23/2013 09:52 PM, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>>> On 23 August 2013 02:50, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 08/22/2013 12:07 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>>>> [+ DT maintainers]
>>>>>
>>>>> Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Enable Hisilicon Hi4511 development platform with device tree support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ...
>>
>>>>>> + osc32k: osc32k {
>>>>>> + compatible = "fixed-clock";
>>>>>> + #clock-cells = <0>;
>>>>>> + clock-frequency = <32768>;
>>>>>> + clock-output-names = "osc32khz";
>>>>>> + };
>>>>>
>>>>> ...seems many of the recent users of clocks have grouped them into a
>>>>> clocks {} grouping on a "simple-bus".
>>>>>
>>>>> DT folks: is there a rule of thumb on how whether these fixed clocks
>>>>> should be grouped on a simple bus?
>>>>
>>>> I would expect all the clock node names to be just "clock", since the
>>>> node names should describe the type of device not their identity (i.e.
>>>> clock name).
>>>>
>>>> In turn, this means that each clock node name needs to use a unit
>>>> address ("@nnn") to make them unique. In turn, this means they must have
>>>> a reg property since the unit address must match the first entry in the
>>>> reg property.
>>>
>>> No, it's really bad on using a unit address. The register always contains
>>> multiple mux or gate or divider. It would cause duplicated unit address.
>>
>> There shouldn't be multiple nodes with identical reg values; if that's
>> happening, then it seems like the mapping of nodes to HW is incorrect.
>>
>> Each HW block should have 1 DT node. That way, the reg values won't collide.
>
> At here, I emphasize each clock node is one clock node. They are organized in
> tree. The same register integrates multiple clock gate/clock mux/clock divider.
> If each clock node is depend on reg, maybe it's not easy to read and the clock
> driver will be more complex.
If there's a single HW block (or single register) that provides multiple
clocks, there should be a single DT node and a single device that
provides multiple clocks.
>>> I tried to use index number also. And it's also bad to append new clock nodes.
>>> So I use the label name instead.
>>>
>>>> Now I assume these clocks don't have any memory-mapped IO registers, so
>>>> they would need an arbitrary reg value rather than a real one. So it
>>>> doesn't make sense to place them directly under the root DT node, since
>>>> their reg values would make no sense within the context of the
>>>> CPU-visible MMIO space that the root node describes.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, it's typical to put all the clock nodes into e.g. a
>>>> /clocks node, since that node can introduce a separate numbering-space
>>>> for clocks. For example, I'd expect something like:
>>>>
>>>> clocks {
>>>> #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>
>>>> osc32k: clock@0 {
>>>> compatible = "fixed-clock";
>>>> reg = <0>;
>> ...
>>>> osc26m: clock@1 {
>>>> compatible = "fixed-clock";
>>>> reg = <1>;
>> ...
>>
>>> Those fixed-clock doesn't contain reg property. Since it needs not to access
>>> any clock register. It only provides the clock rate those child clock node.
>>
>> Inside the clocks node, the reg property is just a dummy value.
>
> Is a dummy value helpful? I don't think so.
It's not a matter of whether it's helpful; it's just how DT works.
--
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
