>>> + if (np) {
>>> + clk = of_clk_get(np, 0);
>>> + if (!IS_ERR(clk)) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * esdhc->peripheral_clock would be assigned a value
>>> + * which is eSDHC base clock when use periperal clock.
>>> + * For ls1046a, the clock value got by common clk API is
>>> + * peripheral clock while the eSDHC base clock is 1/2
>>> + * peripheral clock.
>>> + */
>>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "fsl,ls1046a-esdhc"))
>>> + esdhc->peripheral_clock = clk_get_rate(clk) / 2;
>>> + else
>>> + esdhc->peripheral_clock = clk_get_rate(clk);
>>> + clk_put(clk);
>>> + }
>>> + } else {
>>> + device_property_read_u32(&pdev->dev, "clock-frequency",
>>> +
>>> + &esdhc->peripheral_clock);
>>> }
>>
>> Not sure the "if (np) {}" really serves a purpose since of_clk_get(() will return an
>> error in that case anyway.
>
> Looks this is something, I need to rework, in internal review I got the feedback
> There are two clocks one esdhc->peripheral_clock and another is pltfm_host->clock.
> As ACPI does not have clock frame work like of DT.
> Therefore I have here 2 option
> 1) expose a sort of new driver with CLK in acpi tables and have reference here like ^SB0.CLK
> 2) use fixed clock
> Please suggest if you have some preference in either of
I am not aware of any ACPI options, but you should ask on the ACPI mailing
list and the APCI maintainers.
