On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 04:06:44AM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> Hello Russell,
>
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:14:45AM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > > What it does remove is the need for internal core code to fake up a struct
> > > device simply to access a clock. It also allows us to harmonize the
> > > clock names, used internally in core code, with the hardware reality,
> > > which uses unique names to identify clocks.
> >
> > That problem is already solved. clk_get_sys()
>
> That solves the first problem, but not the second. Is there some reason
> that OMAP core code (aside from the clkdev mapping structures in
> mach-omap2/clock*.c) should know, or care, whether a platform device name
> is bound to that clock?
It's not a platform device name. It's a _device_ name. It really has
precisely nothing what so ever to do with platform devices. clkdev
really couldn't care if the struct device you gave it was representing
a PCI device, AMBA device or a platform device.
> On OMAP, we have uniquely-named clock lines in the technical
> documentation. It is possible that other platforms don't have this. But
> for us, I'd submit that it makes more sense for internal core code to
> fetch a clock documented as "MMC1_FCLK" with:
>
> c = omap_clk_get_by_name("mmc1_fck");
The point is - why invent yet another different clock lookup mechanism
when there already exists adequate mechanisms?
Second question - there is going to be debugfs support for clkdev coming
along. Have you involved yourself with those discussions to ensure that
what is being proposed is going to be suitable for OMAPs usage, or is
OMAP going to implement its own version independently?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
