On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 20:01:49 +0800 Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 17:13:34 +0800 > > Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > But I don't see why you are keeping the simple-gates. The bus gate may > >> > be ungated/gated when the clock is enabled/disabled, and that's what > >> > Allwinner's software does. > >> > >> For peripherals that have a separate mod clock, having them separate > >> is a good thing. One example might be the audio codecs. You could ungate > >> the bus gate to access its registers to program it, but only enable > >> the mod clock when you actually play something. > > > > The roles of the bus gate and the clock gate are the same. I don't see > > any reason to set one gate without setting the other one. More, the > > spec says what the bus gate must be enabled before the clock gate (and > > reverse order while disabling). So, setting both gates in one function > > call seems safer. > > Wha? Aren't bus gates and clock gates the same thing in this context? Yes. What is the problem? -- Ken ar c'hentañ | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! ** Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/ -- 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
