On 02/20/2013 10:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:25:13AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> But, please do think this approach through fully. The DT binding >> needs to define which clock-names the driver requires to be >> present, and any optional clock names. DT bindings are supposed >> to be immutable, or perhaps extendible in a completely >> backwards-compatible fashion. This implies that you need to have >> thought through the entire list of clocks that the driver might >> want in the DT clock-names property when you first write the DT >> binding documentation... > > Since we can extend the list of clocks it doesn't seem like there's > much issue here, especially if some of them are optional? Yes, there's certainly a way to extend the binding in a backwards-compatible way. However, I have seen in Rob and/or Grant push back on not fully defining bindings in the past - i.e. actively planning to initially create a minimal binding and extend it in the future, rather than completely defining it up-front. I don't know how strong of a rule they intend that to be though. If we get to the point of moving the DT bindings out of the kernel, it'd be good to get a concrete definition of what can and can't be changed in bindings. > Though in general it seems like this sort of mux really should be > in the clock stuff anyway. How do you see that working: something automatic inside clk_set_rate() seeing that some other parent could provide the rate, so the clock could be reparented, or ...? -- 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
