On 07/23/2015 11:34 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On 07/23/2015 06:31 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 07/22/2015 12:10 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>> @@ -104,6 +105,37 @@ static int gdsc_disable(struct generic_pm_domain
>>> *domain)
>>> return gdsc_toggle_logic(sc, false);
>>> }
>>> +static int gdsc_attach(struct generic_pm_domain *domain, struct
>>> device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret;
>>> + struct gdsc *sc = domain_to_gdsc(domain);
>>> + char **con_id, *con_ids[] = { "core", "iface", NULL };
>>
>> const?
>>
>> This is where I get scared of sniffing too much SoC glue. What's to
>> enforce the "core", and "iface" naming scheme? What's to enforce there
>> being two clocks vs. one? Maybe a better approach would be to use
>> of_clk_get() and iterate through all clocks of the device, or to encode
>> the clock names in the gdsc structure.
>
> I had the clock names in the gdsc structure in v5. I should probably go
> back to having it that way.
Rajendra, If you decide to go back please look at that comment [1], as well.
--
regards,
Stan
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-arm-msm/msg15040.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
