On 04/24/2015 11:06 AM, Eric Anholt wrote: > Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 04/21/2015 12:09 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >>> We were previously relying on the fixed clock registration in >>> clk-bcm2835, but there doesn't seem to be any real reason to >>> not just define it in the DT (and for the 2836 port, I would >>> have needed to change the clock's physical address in >>> clk-bcm2835.c). Also, because we weren't registering the >>> apb_pclk in clk-bcm2835 as a clock device, we were picking up >>> the uart clock node as apb_pclk by accident. >> >> Doesn't the following do just that? >> >> clk = clk_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "apb_pclk", NULL, >> CLK_IS_ROOT, 126000000); > > Nope! You also need the clk_register_clkdev for the type of > lookup being done by APB to find it. Oh right, that just creates a clock object without registering it in the lookup table? >> Anyway, with this patch, shouldn't we fix >> drivers/clk/clk-bcm2835.c not to register clocks that match those >> that are added to DT in this patch? Actually, to maintain DT ABI >> (new kernels working with old or new DT), we probably need to >> keep the code in clk-bcm2835.c, but make it conditional upon >> whether there's a clock node in the DT file. > > Yeah, I hadn't modified the .c code because of DT ABI Should the C file be modified not the create those clock objects if the DT contains them? -- 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
