On 2016년 07월 02일 09:20, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 06/29, Jongsung Kim wrote: >> On 2016년 06월 29일 06:18, Michael Turquette wrote: >>> Quoting Rob Herring (2016-06-28 13:55:18) >>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 01:12:52PM +0900, Jongsung Kim wrote: >>>>> There is no way to set additional flags for a DT-initialized fixed- >>>>> factor-clock, and it can be problematic i.e., when the clock rate >>>>> needs to be changed. [1][2] >>>>> >>>>> This patch introduces an optional dt-binding named "clock-flags" to >>>>> be used for passing any needed flags from dts. >>>> I don't think we want this in DT. If we did, the flags would need some >>>> documentation about what the flags mean. >>> Flags are specific to Linux implementation, so I agree with Rob. Better >>> to create a compatible string for your hardware that bakes in the flags. >> Thank you for your comment, Mike. This conversation starts from lacking method to set CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT from DT. I understand compatible string can be a solution. But.. if someone starts talking about lacking method to set another flag, i.e., CLK_SET_PARENT_GATE, then we'll need another compatible string list. >> How do you think about defining possible required subset of the flags and using some more neutral flag-names acceptable in DT? > Do you actually have an IC on the board that is doing some fixed > factor calculation? Or is this a clk driver design where we are > listing out each piece of an SoC's clk controller in DT? > The SoC has several PLLs of identical design, and one of them is divided to half and used for CPUs. The fixed-factor-clock represents the divider. -- 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
