Hello Arnd,
On 09/12/2013 16:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 09 December 2013, boris brezillon wrote:
You are adding "clock-names" properties in a lot of cases. Are you sure you
are using the strings that are documented in the respective device bindings
for each name? In a lot of cases, drivers just want an anonymous clock
and we don't name them.
I rechecked it, and almost all drivers call [devm_]clk_get with a
specific clock
name, and as a result we must specify the "clock-names" property.
The only exceptions I found are the spi and PIT (Periodic Interval
Timer) drivers,
and "clock-names" property is not defined in these nodes.
Yes, I understood that the *drivers* use the names, but are they actually
documented in the device bindings? If not, it might be better to change the
drivers.
We have to keep both clk system working for at91 platform (new CCF based
clk implementations and old clk implementations) for two reasons:
1) the new clk implemetations are only compatible with DT enabled boards
and some at91 boards are not yet ported to DT.
2) we decided to move to the new clk implementations in multiple steps
(one SoC
family after another) in order to ease PATCH review.
If we change the drivers to avoid specific clock name request
([devm]_clk_get(dev, NULL)),
we will have to change the old static clk lookup tables
(i.e.
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c#L226,
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260.c#L202,
...).
Best Regards,
Boris
Arnd
--
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
