On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Munegowda, Keshava wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2011, Munegowda, Keshava wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Keshava Munegowda wrote:
> >> >> 4. usb_tll_hs hwmod of usbhs with the TLL base address and irq.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <keshava_mgowda@xxxxxx>
> >> >> Reviewed-by: Partha Basak <parthab@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_3xxx_data.c | 271 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> 1 files changed, 271 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_3xxx_data.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_3xxx_data.c
> >> >> index 59fdb9f..d79f728 100644
> >> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_3xxx_data.c
> >> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_3xxx_data.c
> >
> >> >> +static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if omap34xx_f128m_cfg__usb_host_hs = {
> >> >> + .clk = "usbhost_120m_fck",
> >> >
> >> > This doesn't look right. This is an interface structure record, so it
> >> > should be associated with an interface clock. Is the hardware really
> >> > using the functional clock as the interface clock? Or, as seems more
> >> > likely...
> >>
> >>
> >> Agreed, how about:
> >>
> >> main clock: usbhost_120m_fck
> >> optional f clock: usbhost_48m_fck
> >
> > Assuming the interface clock is enabled, which one of these clocks is
> > needed for UHH register accesses to complete successfully?
>
> it is usbhost_48m_fck ;
> so,
> main clock: usbhost_48m_fck
> optional clock : usbhost_120m_fck
>
> do you agree?
Yes.
- Paul
