Hello Russell, On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:23:49AM -0600, Woodruff, Richard wrote: > > > > > There's one bug that your version highlights in mine - the virtual mpu > > > clock in omap1 touches the DPLL and repropagates that rate. I've > > > removed that repropagation, so that needs fixing. > > > > > > However, this raises a question: why is the virtual mpu clock touching > > > some other part of the clock tree. I wonder whether this should be > > > handled a different way, though the first thing that needs answering is > > > why we have this alias for 'arm_ck' ? > > > > At one point in time the virtual clock allowed control for a set of clocks > > with some dependencies. The mpu alias provided a convenient control point. > > >From what I can see (checking both mainline and Tony's tree), this mpu > alias (virtual_ck_mpu) is not used on OMAP1, which seems to suggest > that this quirk has become redundant. If it is redundant, it should > be removed. > > If there is some code somewhere to use it, this quirk should live with > the user of the quirk until such time that the user becomes ready to be > merged. I don't think there's any reason for virtual_ck_mpu or virt_prcm_set to have a parent clock listed. At some point this year, those virtual OPP clocks will be removed from the clock tree and implemented in a different manner. If you like, I will send a patch for removal of virtual_ck_mpu from OMAP1, although my suspicion is that OMAP1 is just missing a CPUFreq driver to use that OPP clock. - Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
