On Thursday 10 April 2014 08:46:03 Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > >> > >> Is it really a fixed clock without any parent, or do you > >> declare it as a fixed clock because you don't have any clock > >> common framework support yet? > > > > I don't have any common clock framework support yet. > > So maybe you should provide one (even a very simple one). > > Pretending a clock is a fixed clock and ignoring its parents > will be problematic when you will add the common clock framework > support because the device tree is supposed to be stable and you won't > be able to change it then. But is this actually a problem here? The current device tree file will keep working even if the proper driver is there, you just need to update both the driver and the dts file in order to actually use the clocks at run-time. I guess it comes down to the question of whether we want to handle old kernels with new device trees again, which would be broken here. Arnd -- 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
