On Wednesday 21 August 2013 05:27 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > >> With support to parse clock data from DT, move all main and optional >> clock information from hwmod to DT. >> >> We still retain clocks in hwmod for devices which do not have a DT node. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi | 100 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_44xx_data.c | 112 ---------------------------- >> 2 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 112 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi >> index 8e142f9..4dddf64 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi >> @@ -106,6 +106,8 @@ >> compatible = "ti,omap-counter32k"; >> reg = <0x4a304000 0x20>; >> ti,hwmods = "counter_32k"; >> + clocks = <&sys_32k_ck>; >> + clock-names = "fck"; > > Shouldn't these patches be using the official DT clock binding format? They are, already. > Either the 'clocks' property should be something like: > > clocks = <&prm 10>; That depends on the #clock-cells for the clock provider node. These patches are based on Teros series to move all OMAP clocks to DT [1], and the clock providers in his series have the #clock-cells set to 0. So the clock bindings do not mandate clocks = <&clk-provider index> or clocks = <&clk-provider> It just depends on how the clk-provider node is defined. [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/100117 > > or a change to the bindings needs to be discussed and implemented. > > > - Paul > -- 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
