On 03/12/15 20:29, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:43:40PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 03/12/15 10:20, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> On 2015-02-17 14:01:04 [-0800], Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> diff =
>>>> --- arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c
>>>> +++ /tmp/cocci-output-11792-b62223-mach-imx6q.c
>>>> @@ -211,7 +211,6 @@ static void __init imx6q_1588_init(void)
>>>> * set bit IOMUXC_GPR1[21]. Or the PTP clock must be from pad
>>>> * (external OSC), and we need to clear the bit.
>>>> */
>>>> - clksel = ptp_clk == enet_ref ? IMX6Q_GPR1_ENET_CLK_SEL_ANATOP :
>>>> IMX6Q_GPR1_ENET_CLK_SEL_PAD;
>>>> gpr = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible("fsl,imx6q-iomuxc-gpr");
>>>> if (!IS_ERR(gpr))
>>> Any idea how to do the comparison here? Or should we rely that the bootloader
>>> sets this properly (it managed already to select a frequency)? The phy has no
>>> clock node in current DT's so we can check this.
>>>
>> This has been fixed by adding a clk_is_match() helper and using that to
>> compare instead of comparing raw pointers. It would be nice if we could
>> replace the patch with something else that doesn't require this helper
>> though. It looks like this is static board configuration, so I wonder
>> why we didn't just have a DT property that indicates how the gpr should
>> be configured for this particular board.
> We did not add a DT property for it, because there was already enough
> info (clock configuration) in DT for kernel to figure it out.
Ok well then if everything is in DT we don't need to be comparing clock
pointers at all, right? We should be able to write up some DT parsing
logic to figure it out?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
