On Wednesday 12 February 2014 11:47:40 Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:21:50AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 February 2014, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > To me it feels odd to require the last clock in the list (apb_pclk) to > > > be named, and the rest to be in a particular order. For the dt case it > > > seems saner to add new clocks with names as it allows arbitrary subsets > > > of clocks to be wired up and described (though obviously in this case a > > > missing sspclk would be problematic). > > > > Yes, good point about the missing clocks, and I also agree mixing ordered > > and named clocks in one device is rather odd and can lead to trouble. > > > > I guess there isn't really a good way out here, and I certainly won't > > ask for it to be done one way or the other if someone else has a > > good argument which way it should be implemented. > > Having thought about it, all dts that for the ssp_pclk must have some > name for the sspclk (though the specific name is arbitrary). I could get > the driver to try each of those before falling back to the index > (perhaps with a helper that takes a list of known aliases), so all > existing dts (that we are aware of) would work with the clock requested > by name. Strange. Why do the even have names in there? What are those strings? I noticed that ux500 has uses four different strings, one for each instance, which is obviously a bug and should just be fixed. There is no way this was intentional, and we can just rely on teh fallback if you want to have that anyway. > I assume that for the non-dt case it's possible to name clock inputs to > a device without the clock being associated with the name globally? If > so we could get rid of the index usage entirely in this case. Sorry, I don't understand the question. 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
