Hi Russell, On Saturday 03 of August 2013 19:35:43 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 04:02:36PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > + if (cl) > > > + return cl; > > > + > > > + /* If clock was not found, attempt to look-up from DT */ > > > + node = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, con_id); > > > > Why are we introducing the "lookup by name" brokenness to the yet > > (mostly) sane DT world? > > > > We already have a good way of binding things together in DT, which is > > using phandles. > > > > Not even saying that this (or something this patch relies on) breaks > > the ePAPR recommendation about node naming, which states that node > > names should not be used to convey platform-specific data, but > > instead should be as generic as possible to show what kind of > > hardware is represented by the node. > > Tell me this: many devices name their clock inputs. You can find these > input names in data sheets and the like. These are the names defined > by the hardware. What is wrong about using those names in DT? Yes, clock inputs. But this is about lookup by clock name, not clock input name, as far as I can tell from the patch, based on looking for a node with given name over the whole DT. > Remember that the second argument to clk_get() is the _clock_ _input_ > _name_ on the _device_ passed in the first argument. It is not *ever* > some random name of the clock producer unless someone's fscked up their > use of this API (in which case they're the ones with the problem.) This is perfectly fine and this is how the generic common clock framework DT bindings work - clock-names property is a list of clock input names and clocks property contain specifiers of respective clocks. Best regards, Tomasz -- 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
