On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > FAO Stephen Boyd, > > > > > Stephen, can you, please, have a look into patch 8 regarding to clock name > > > matching and other stuff Lee asked? > > > > Patch 8: > > > > "Can you review the clock implementation please? It looks > > fragile to me as it relies heavily on device names constructed > > of MFD cell names and IDA numbers cat'ed together!" > > Lee, can you suggest an alternative then? > > Why we are doing it like this is that number of different LPSS devices > changes from SoC to SoC. In addition to that the device (called "slice") > might have iDMA block or not. > > Since the drivers in question (pxa2xx-spi, i2c-designware and 8250_dw) > use standard clk framework to request their clocks the Linux device must > have clock registered which matches the device in advance. > > Because we add the host controller device dynamically (from the MFD > driver) based on how many devices are actually present, we need somehow > predict what would be the correct name and instance number for that > device to get the clock for it. That's the reason we use IDA here along > with the cell name (or driver name). I'm sure there are perfectly viable reasons for you doing this. And I don't know the CCF well enough to know whether it's the best idea or not, or else I would have made a suggestion rather than waiting all this time. It's for this reason that I needed Mike (now Stephen) to take a look and give me either an Ack, to say it's the best solution, or to provide a better alternative. Until that happens, I'm stuck! -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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
