On Friday 04 July 2014, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > It feels a little fragile to rely on the organisation of the clock tree > > > > and the naming thereof. If the IP block is ever reused on an SoC with a > > > > different clock tree layout then we have to handle things differently. > > > > > > What do you suggest then? > > > > I will admit that I don't have a better suggestion. > > > > Without knowing which particular constraint on the mux parent clock we > > care about it's difficult to suggest anything useful. > > Well, I first made it into the mach- directory, and then was told to > move it in the driver itself, so we're kind of running out of options > :) How about having a property in the clock provider node that forces a specific value for the mux? I think that's generally the preferred solution for any clock settings that go beyond what an OS can be expected to figure out for itself. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
