Jerome, Martin, On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 18:46, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon 27 Apr 2020 at 18:23, Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Jerome, > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:56 AM Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > >> > Changes since v3 at [3]: > >> > - split the clock bits into a separate clock controller driver because > >> > of two reasons: 1) it keeps the MMC controller driver mostly clean of > >> > the clock bits > >> > >> If the register is in the MMC controller register space and the MMC > >> driver is the driver using these clocks, it is where the clocks belong. > >> I don't get why it could be an issue ? > >> > >> Is the clock block is shared with another device, like on the Gx family ? > > no, it is not shared with another device (to my knowledge). > > > >> > 2) the pure clock controller can use > >> > devm_clk_hw_register() (instead of devm_clk_register(), which is > >> > deprecated) and the MMC controller can act as a pure clock consumer. > >> > >> Why can't you use devm_clk_hw_register in an MMC driver ? > >> Unless I missed something, it is provided by clk-provider.h, which can be > >> included by any driver. > > indeed, I could use devm_clk_hw_register in the MMC driver. > > Ulfs concern was that a lot of code was needed for managing the clocks > > and I agree with him. so this is my way of keeping those details away > > from the MMC driver and have two separate drivers which are better to > > understand overall. > > Martin, Ulf, > > I understand that CCF code might seems verbose and I'm happy to help > review it if necessary but I don't think every driver out there should > register some kind of fake clock controller driver everytime they wish > to use CCF API. > > Yes the it might make the driver code cleaner but the overall > architecture is harder to follow. > > CCF was made so driver from any subsystem *may* use it. Creating a > controller for a single register is overkill. The HW architecture of > this particular device does not justify it. I fully understand your point and I agree with it. If I recall correctly, my point in the earlier review phase was that I wanted the driver to be nicely split into a clock provider part and into a mmc host driver part. I also raised the point of using devm_clk_hw_register() rather than the deprecated devm_clk_register(). I still think this makes sense. That said, perhaps a reasonable split could be to have two separate c-files (one for clock provider and one for mmc host), but both in the mmc subsystem. Kind regards Uffe
