On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:12:13AM +0000, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > > Hi Mark Rutland > > > > -------------------- > > > So, ideally. However we have to consider the fact that the clock API > > > isn't reliably available makes this harder than it should be. Even > > > among the DT using platforms at least PowerPC still uses a custom clock > > > API. We could just use this as a carrot to push people to convert > > > though. > > > --------------------- > > > > I would be happier if we could unify the common clock infrastructure, it > > would make this kind of thing a lot lessy messy. However, I'm not > > against the system-clock-frequency property for now. > > Thank you > > > > OK, sorry for my English > > > > Sorry for the confusion, I'll try to be less ambiguous in future :) > > > > What I was trying to get at here is that if there is neither a clock or > > a system-clock-frequency property in the device tree, dai->sysclk will > > not have been initialised in this path. Is this a valid case, and will > > dai->sysclk have a well-defined, sane value? > > My understanding, this "dai" itself is created by devm_kzalloc() > So, default dai->sysclk is 0. > And, if there is no clocks, no system-clock-frequency property, > it try of_property_read_u32() side. but it will do nothing to dai->sysclk > in such case. so dai->sysclk is still 0, and it is very sane on this driver. > Is this good answer ? That sounds fine to me. Just wanted to make sure. :) Thanks, Mark. -- 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
