Quoting Taniya Das (2020-08-05 22:23:05)
> On 8/6/2020 1:54 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> + .hw = &core_clk_src.clkr.hw,
> >> + },
> >> + .num_parents = 1,
> >> + .flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
> >> + .ops = &clk_branch2_ops,
> >> + },
> >> + },
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static struct clk_regmap *lpass_core_cc_sc7180_clocks[] = {
> >> + [EXT_MCLK0_CLK_SRC] = &ext_mclk0_clk_src.clkr,
> >> + [LPAIF_PRI_CLK_SRC] = &lpaif_pri_clk_src.clkr,
> >> + [LPAIF_SEC_CLK_SRC] = &lpaif_sec_clk_src.clkr,
> >> + [CORE_CLK_SRC] = &core_clk_src.clkr,
> >
> > And all of these, can they have LPASS_ prefix on the defines? Seems
> > like we're missing a namespace otherwise.
> >
>
> These are generated as they are in the HW plan. Do you still think I
> should update them?
>
As long as there aren't going to be conflicts in the clk names I guess
it's OK to do nothing here.
