On 6/11/2012 6:59 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
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.
Sorry for the confusion; I was just referring to the prm_clkdm and cm_clkdm.
I continue to be baffled as to why you assert that they are fake, given
how clearly they are documented.
In that case the clock domains are valid, but that does not change the
fact that they are useless, at least for the moment.
The PRCM is already taking care of managing properly the domains based
on module activity. Adding that to the clocks nodes is not wrong, but
does add an information that is a duplication of what the HW is already
doing.
That's why we should populate that information only if this is needed,
like it was the case for the DPLL, but it should remain optional.
Regards,
Benoit
--
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
