On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:36:41AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 02/20/2013 10:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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. That sounds like the current stuff with a minimal definition is OK? > > 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 ...? That'd certainly be nice as a feature, but it'd also be good to just be able to define this sort of multi-parent mux in a generic way in DT since it's pretty common even if the actual implementation of picking a parent ends up getting open coded in individual drivers. A library function might also be a way of handling it short term.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
