On 1/7/2015 1:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 January 2015 18:29:07 Ray Jui wrote:
>> On 1/6/2015 12:21 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Monday 05 January 2015 15:21:15 Ray Jui wrote:
>>>> +static const struct iproc_asiu_gate asiu_gate[BCM_CYGNUS_NUM_ASIU_CLKS] = {
>>>> + [BCM_CYGNUS_ASIU_KEYPAD_CLK] =
>>>> + asiu_gate_val(0x0, 7),
>>>> + [BCM_CYGNUS_ASIU_ADC_CLK] =
>>>> + asiu_gate_val(0x0, 9),
>>>> + [BCM_CYGNUS_ASIU_PWM_CLK] =
>>>> + asiu_gate_val(IPROC_CLK_INVALID_OFFSET, 0),
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> Here I think a better binding would be to pass the gate value in the
>>> clock specifier, rather than an artificial index. That would let
>>> you get rid of the BCM_CYGNUS_ASIU_KEYPAD_CLK/BCM_CYGNUS_ASIU_ADC_CLK
>>> macros.
>>>
>> You meant to pass in both the gate register offset and its bit shift
>> through the clock specifier? But isn't the current ASIU clock code much
>> more consistent with the rest of the iProc clock code?
>
> For simple devices that don't need an index macro, I would always
> prefer not defining them, because they are a pain to maintain.
> For a simple gate clock controller, we could compute both the offset
> and bit number from a single integer.
>
> However, I now saw upon taking a closer look that the asiu has both
> a gate and a divider, and the latter one is not as simple, so
> my comment doesn't apply here.
>
> Arnd
>
Okay. I'll leave this as it is and make other changes based on the
review. Thanks!
--
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
