On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > In fact, neither prm_clkdm not cm_clkdm are valid clock domain on OMAP4 > :-(. > > I've just realized that you introduced that for 3.5, but this is wrong. > We should not start adding some fake clock domains just because the fmwk > is not smart enough to allow a NULL clock domain. > ... > In a period of data size reduction, adding some fake information does > not seems to be the right approach. Don't you think so? No, I do not. These clockdomains are clearly documented in both the OMAP4 TRM[1] and the NDA OMAP4 PRCM functional specifications. I continue to be baffled as to why you assert that they are fake, given how clearly they are documented. - Paul 1. See for example sections 3.6.6.1 "Overview", Figure 3-58 "CD_L4_PER Overview", Figure 3-59 "CD_L3_INIT Overview", Figure 3-62 "CD_EMU Overview", Figure 3-63 "CD_DSS Overview", Figure 3-74 "CD_L4_ALWON_CORE Overview" in the OMAP4 TRM Rev. AA (SWPU231AA). -- 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
