On 16-10-19, 13:22, Taniya Das wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
>
> On 10/16/2019 10:55 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 15-10-19, 16:03, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> >
> > > + timer {
> > > + compatible = "arm,armv8-timer";
> > > + interrupts = <GIC_PPI 1 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>,
> > > + <GIC_PPI 2 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>,
> > > + <GIC_PPI 3 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>,
> > > + <GIC_PPI 0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + clocks {
> >
> > Can we have these sorted alphabetically please
> >
> > > + xo_board: xo-board {
> > > + compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > + clock-frequency = <38400000>;
> > > + clock-output-names = "xo_board";
> > > + #clock-cells = <0>;
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + sleep_clk: sleep-clk {
> > > + compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > + clock-frequency = <32764>;
> > > + clock-output-names = "sleep_clk";
> > > + #clock-cells = <0>;
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + bi_tcxo: bi_tcxo {
> >
> > why is this a clock defined here? Isnt this gcc clock?
>
> This is a RPMH-controlled clock and not from GCC. It is the parent clock for
> GCC RCGs/PLLs.
Yes right!
> Once the RPMH clock support is added these would be removed.
Wont it make sense to keep this bit not upstream and then remove that
part when you have rpmh support available. Reduces the churn upstream!
The parent can be xo_board till then!
--
~Vinod
