On 09/01, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Exynos4412 clock controller contains some additional clocks for FIMC-ISP
> (Camera ISP) subsystem. Registers for those clocks are partially located
> in the SOC area, which belongs to ISP power domain.
>
> This patch extends clock controller node with ISP clock sub-node and link
> (phandle) to ISP power domain.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4x12.dtsi | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4x12.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4x12.dtsi
> index 3394bdcf10ae..4daea67546b9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4x12.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4x12.dtsi
> @@ -74,6 +74,11 @@
> compatible = "samsung,exynos4412-clock";
> reg = <0x10030000 0x20000>;
> #clock-cells = <1>;
> +
> + isp-clock-controller {
> + compatible = "samsung,exynos4412-isp-clock";
> + power-domains = <&pd_isp>;
> + };
Why can't we extend support in power domains code to have
multiple domains for a single device node? i.e. power-domains =
<&pd_isp>, <&pd_foo>, <&pd_bar>, and then pick the right one with
power-domain-names or something like that? Making a subnode
(which seems to turn into a child platform device?) seems like a
quick solution for larger problems.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
