Hi Rahul, Tushar, On 15.05.2014 15:44, Rahul Sharma wrote: > Hi Tushar, > > Basically you are adding a new clock-type for Clkout. IMO clkout > is not a special hardware. Existing clock types can be reused to > support clkout. I see 3 major problem here: > > 1) Clkout -> (Mux + Gate). You clubbed mux and gate together, and > exposing as a single clock which is something like a composite clock. > IMO this is not a recommended way in CCF. > > 2) New Clock Type: Since clkout is just a combination of a simple > mux and gate which are already supported, it is a unnecessary > duplication. > > 3) Clkout registered along with CMU: which is not correct. Clkout is in PMU > (Separate physical IP) and should be registered as a independent Clock > provider which provides 1 mux and 1 gate clock (As if now). It should also be > well connected with main CMU. > > I understand the challenge in using regmap interface for a clock provider. But > we need to identify a clean solution. IMHO a independent clock provider with > iomap, is relatively cleaner approach till CCF is not ready with regmap based > reg access for clock registers. > > Experts!! please comment. It's quite unfortunate that Tushar has duplicated the effort to create a clkout driver, considering the fact that we did have such driver internally at SRPOL and it was quite nice and simple. I will post a cleaned-up version today, that is about 2 times smaller in terms of lines of added code and provides the same functionality, without introducing custom clock types. In addition, it models the clkout properly as a feature of PMU, not CMU (CMU only provides outputs of particular sub-blocks that are fed into the PMU). Best regards, Tomasz -- 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
