Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > >> Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it >> says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to >> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied. > > Well that is exactly what we're doing. Is there an issue with that? > > This is a way to do it at a platform level. It means we can support > multiple platforms where clocksources have been switched around > without writing new driver code in drivers/clk/st. > > If you have something else in mind, let me know. > >> 2) I still fail to see why this is necessary >> IOW why declaring the mandatory always-on clocks with the proper flag should >> be augmented with a new clock list. Isn't the existing flag the generic way >> ? > > I'm not sure what you mean by this, would you be able to expland a > little? > >> I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, that's why I'm >> asking. > > Please bear in mind that we don't supply our clocks statically. All > of the information is extracted from DT, so if the always-on > information does reside in there, where do you propose it comes from? I thought the standard clock binding provided a way to set this flag. Now I crosschecked the binding, it doesn't ... My point was I didn't want the flag to be settable from 2 different places, where consistency was to be kept across different device-tree leafs. > We could just write this code inside our own driver and apply the > CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED at a local level, but that's not the generic > solution I am searching for. All right, I'm convinced now I undertand the flag was not settable from devicetree binding before this patchset. You can add to patch 3/4 : Reviewed-by: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx> -- Robert -- 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
