On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Mike Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting Anders Berg (2014-05-14 11:37:57)
>> +Example:
>> +
>> + clk_ref0: clk_ref0 {
>> + compatible = "fixed-clock";
>> + #clock-cells = <0>;
>> + clock-frequency = <125000000>;
>> + };
>
> Hi Anders,
>
> The driver looks good. As for the DT binding, I am starting to request
> that bindings for new hardware move away from the one-clock-per-node
> method. I am not forcing anyone with stable bindings to migrate that
> way, but it tends to make maintenance easier in the long run (e.g.
> setting per-clock flags, etc).
>
> Your clk_ref0 example looks good, assuming that it is an off-chip clock
> that feeds into the rest of the clock generator.
>
>> +
>> + clk_cpu_pll: clk_cpu_pll@2010022000 {
>> + compatible = "lsi,axxia-pll-clock";
>> + #clock-cells = <0>;
>> + clocks = <&clk_ref0>;
>> + clock-output-names = "clk_cpu_pll";
>> + reg = <0x20 0x10022000 0 0x2c>;
>> + };
>
> I assume the rest of your clocks are part of a clock generator IP block
> inside of your chip. Have you looked at the QCOM binding? It is my
> favorite binding these days. Here are some highlights:
>
[...]
>
> Using this type of binding you only need to declare your clock generator
> IP node in dts, and then define a mapping in the DT include chroot. Then
> you can define your per-clock data inside of your clock driver instead
> of putting all of the details inside of DT.
>
> If you have a strong reason to do it the way that you originally posted
> then let me know.
>
No strong reason... I just happened to pick the keystone-clocks.dtsi
as an example when I wrote this. But I can rework this according to
your suggestions. I'll post it as a separate patch (thus dropping the
clk patch from this series). Ok?
Thanks,
Anders
--
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
