Hi, Stephen
On 2016年12月23日 04:51, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 12/22, zhangfei wrote:
On 2016年12月22日 07:25, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 12/15, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
Signed-off-by: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@xxxxxxxxxx>
+
+ switch (type) {
+ case HI3660_CRGCTRL:
+ hi3660_clk_crgctrl_init(np);
+ break;
+ case HI3660_PCTRL:
+ hi3660_clk_pctrl_init(np);
+ break;
+ case HI3660_PMUCTRL:
+ hi3660_clk_pmuctrl_init(np);
+ break;
+ case HI3660_SCTRL:
+ hi3660_clk_sctrl_init(np);
+ break;
+ case HI3660_IOMCU:
+ hi3660_clk_iomcu_init(np);
+ break;
This "multi-device" driver design is sort of odd. Why not have
different files and struct drivers for the different devices in
the system that are clock controllers? I don't really understand
why we're controlling the devices with one struct driver
instance. Is something shared between the devices?
Do you mean put in different .c / drivers?
Yes.
They have to be put in the same file, since the parent / child
relate to each other.
We handle clk parent/child relationships through strings. So why
does that mean we need to put these in the same file with the
same struct driver?
Yes, you are right.
But we still prefer to put in the same file for as a hi3660-clock driver,
since it is easy to maintain.
There may too many files if each chip split to small pieces,
there may many chips for hisilicon in the futures.
And some clocks has less entries, like hi3660_pmu_gate_clks only have
one entry.
Also put in one file is easy to find parent/child relation, so easier to
find bugs.
After all, they just put in different region for privilege control, no
other special reason.
What do you think.
Thanks
They are for the same chip, but some put in different region for
privilege control.
Ok.
--
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
