On 02/15/2013 02:24 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 09:15:28PM +0100, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 02/14/2013 11:59 AM, Hiroshi Doyu wrote: >>> To replace magic number in tegra_car: >>> >>> - clocks = <&tegra_car 28>; >>> + clocks = <&tegra_car CLK_HOST1X>; >> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20-car.h b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20-car.h >> >> Sorry, forgot a couple small comments the last time around. >> >> This file should probably have some header indicating which binding it >> describes, rather like the GPIO header in my patch series. >> >>> +#define CLK_CPU 0 >> >> I'd suggest naming that TEGRA20_CLK_CPU, so that the various different >> clock headers don't conflict. It's not too likely that more than one of >> the /Tegra/ clock headers will be included at once, but it doesn't seem >> that unlikely that a board file could end up having a Tegra clock header >> included plus various other clock headers for some other chip that has >> some clock outputs. >> > > I would suggest removing this clock. It's not actually implemented in the CCF > and rather useless. If you would gate the CPU clock from the CPU by writing to > this register, how would you ungate it? :) Note that this would gate the clock > to all CPUs. (Note that my comment was re: all clocks, not just that one clock) Can't the PMC or flow-controller ungate the clock based on some event? Either way, that clock definition exists in HW, right? So I don't think there's actually any harm in including the definition in the binding even if we never implement/use it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
