Hi Stephen, On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:48:16PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 06/07, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > The current code has been tested on the H3 and an Orange Pi PC, > > including making sure that MMC still works, so the general approach > > seems ok. > > > > Let me know what you think, > > Overall this looks pretty good. Thanks for taking the time to > rework the driver. > > The macro nesting is sort of concerning, but if you're willing to > live with a maze of macros I'm not too worried. Also, I don't see > why we have to use the ccu_common structure everywhere even when > we're not gaining from it, but it's not a huge problem either > way. The non-mmio clks could be split off from the mmio list and > then registered in two lists, or there could be mmio list that > sets up the base address and then a larger list of clk_hw > pointers that we just run through and register. Ok, I'll move the fixed factor clocks out of the ccu_common list. > It would be great if we could squeeze some more code reuse out of > the basic types too, but I'm not sure if there's much more that > can be done. Sometimes I'm seeing the same code multiple times > for handling muxes with parents and dividers or muxes without > dividers, etc. But that seems like future work that isn't going > to block anything here. I tried my best already to move the common code, but it's not clear at this point what can be factorised and what will only be used by a single clock driver. Obviously, as we will support more SoCs, that will become clearer and we will be able to factor out the code that needs to be. > Finally, can you please use the clk_hw_register() APIs that we've > recently added. That will save us some time converting a new > driver over to use the new style of registering clks. Ack, consider it done. Thanks! Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
