On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:49:05PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> Two more comments: >> >> On Thursday 20 February 2014 10:15:54 Florian Fainelli wrote: >> > +- clock-names: should contain "periph" for the functional clock >> >> I think we should really start standardizing on the clock names more. >> We don't have any uart that calls its functional clock "periph" so >> far. >> >> How about naming it "fclk" or "uart"? >> >> I'd actually prefer making it an anonymous clock, but I know that >> will just trigger comments about what might happen if it turns >> out we need more than one clock for a future version of this device. > > Yup ;) > > I'm happy as long as we have a well-defined name for each clock input, > regardless of what those particular names might be. There already is a (non-OF) user for this driver that exports a "periph" clock, which is where the name comes from. It currently does all clock lookups purely based on the clock name, not the device name itself. Of course we can just make it get a different named clock when of_node is present; that should satisfy both. Technically on BCM6345 there are actually two clocks (more or less), the "periph" for the reference clock rate, and a clock bit in the clock controller register for the uart block. All later chips do not expose a uart clock bit anymore, and the bootloader is expected to enable it on systems with the clock, so we can probably pretend that it does not exist. Also it's quite unlikely that BCM6345 will ever receive proper OF support, and if it does, we can add the second optional clock then if we find devices that need it. Regards Jonas -- 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
