On 09/10/2013 12:01 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 09/10/2013 07:15 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > >>>> Do you need any clocks properties, IP block reset signals, power >>>> domains? > >>> Currently not. > >> What does "currently" mean? Does that mean that the Linux driver simply >> doesn't touch those entities at present? > > There's Ether clock but the driver doesn't manipulate it directly, > assumingly it does this thru the runtime PM interface. As for the > others, I simply don't know. If there's a clock, it should be represented in DT, even if the kernel somehow gets access to the clock through some means other than parsing DT. >> If so, that's not enough to say >> that those entities should not be described in the DT binding. We should >> strive to make the binding completely describe all aspects of the HW, >> irrespective of whether a particular driver happens to use that >> information at present. > > There's no DT representation for the clocks in SH-Mobile subarch yet. > The same applies to the other entities you mentioned. You can still write the binding to say that the appropriate clock property must be present; the overall format of this property won't be affected by the representation chosen for the SH-Mobile clocks. It seems like it'd be best to get the basic resources (like clocks) represented in DT before trying to build blocks that use them. -- 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
