On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/21, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >> On Fri 20 Nov 16:39 PST 2015, Stephen Boyd wrote: [..] >> Do you foresee that there will be an implementation of the generic rpmcc >> or is it just a way to "standardize" the dt binding? >> > > I don't see any problem with implementing the RPM clock > controller as one file or two files (one for platform bus based > RPM modules and one for SMD bus RPM modules). The compatible can > be the same for both struct driver instances, while the bus will > pick the right driver. I suspect we'll need SoC specific > compatibles though to export the right set of clocks, so having > the generic compatible is mostly to find these rpm clock > controllers so that we know to skip registering the XO clock from > the GCC driver and not some generic implementation of the driver. > Ahh, now I get it. So the generic rpmcc to be able to check if we have a rpmcc instance and then the specific for the actual implementation. I'm +1 on that. > There's probably a subset of the clocks that's always the same > between devices, so if we had to we could match the generic > compatible and provide limited functionality. > After looking at a couple of platforms I don't think it's worth the effort of having a common list of rpm clocks. My suggestion is that we just continue with the suggested approach (having platform specific rpmcc defines and tables) Regards, Bjorn -- 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
