Hi Mark, On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 07:49:42PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:48:52PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:21:19AM +0100, 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. > > There's supposed to be facilities appearing in the generic clock code > for specifying default clock tree configurations via the DT - it's quite > a common requirement after all. It sounds like that should be able to > do the job here. Not sure if these have gone in yet or not but there's > quite a bit of demand. As far as I'm aware, it's not been merged yet. -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
