On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:15:40PM +0300, Max Filippov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > My suggestion is: > > > > 1) if there is a clk node: > > - we get the clock rate via clock framework > > - "clock-frequency" is describing the bus speed as usual (Note > > that parsing here can be as simple as checking for 100kHz only. > > Although a seperate patch could probably easily add support for > > other bus speeds to) > > > > 2?) a new binding is present to specify the IP clock speed: > > - is this needed? is somebody using the driver without CCF? > > - if so, the new binding is parsed and evaluated > > - I couldn't find an existing binding to specify a clock speed. > > Please have a look, too. Otherwise we need to introduce sth > > like "opencores,ip-clock-khz" probably. > > - "clock-frequency" is describing the bus speed as usual > > > > 3) only "clock-frequency" is present: > > - we keep the current behaviour to be backwards compatible. > > - driver should emit a warning to convert to new style > > - must be marked deprecated everywhere > > > > The documentation should be updated accordingly. > > > > Thoughts? > > I can update my patch to do (1) and (3), leaving (2) to whoever may > need that. Please implement (2) as well. Otherwise we would have documented ambiguity of "clock-frequency" which is bad. It shouldn't be much code.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
