Hi Tomasz,
I perfectly see your point.
However my question was why you did you decide to postpone
Sylwester's? Was there any specific reason?
I suppose it would break all the dtb compatibility, but besides that,
was there any other reason?
Best,
Humberto
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Humberto,
>
> You can find my comments inline.
>
> On 31.07.2014 13:22, Humberto Silva Naves wrote:
>> This implements the fixed rate clocks generated either inside or
>> outside the SoC. It also adds a dt-binding constant for the
>> sclk_hdmiphy clock, which shall be later used by other drivers,
>> such as the DRM.
>>
>> Since the external fixed rate clock fin_pll is now registered by
>> the clk-exynos5410 file, the bindings with the device tree file have
>> changed. It is no longer needed to define fin_pll as a fixed clock,
>> such as in:
>>
>> fin_pll: xxti {
>> compatible = "fixed-clock";
>> clock-frequency = <24000000>;
>> clock-output-names = "fin_pll";
>> #clock-cells = <0>;
>> };
>>
>> The above lines should be replaced by the following lines:
>>
>> fixed-rate-clocks {
>> oscclk {
>> compatible = "samsung,exynos5410-oscclk";
>> clock-frequency = <24000000>;
>> };
>> };
>>
>> This new form of binding was properly documented in the relevant
>> documentation file.
>
> In general this is backwards. This Exynos-specific clock binding was
> invented before generic fixed rate clock binding showed up and so few
> drivers still use it to maintain DT ABI compatibility. However new
> drivers are required to use the new generic binding and so does the one
> for Exynos5410.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
--
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
