On 01/28/2013 03:21 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Stephen Warren,
>
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:08:46 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> I must admit, I know nothing about struct mvebu_soc_descr, but I'm
>> having a hard time seeing how that code change makes one of those clock
>> a parent of the other, since the pex0 entry doesn't reference anything
>> "pex1"-related, nor vice-versa. Is more explanation in the commit
>> message warranted here?
>
> See the definition of mvebu_soc_descr:
>
> struct mvebu_soc_descr {
> const char *name;
> const char *parent;
> int bit_idx;
> };
>
> It simply registers the pex0 clock with the pex0_en clock as its
> parents. Those clocks are normal gatable clocks, registered with
> clk_register_gate(). This ensures that whenever the pex0 clock is
> enabled, its parent clock pex0_en gets enabled as well.
Oh I see; I was confused by the patch description. The two clocks being
made child/parent are the two clocks for a port, and this relationship
is set up for each port; for some reason I thought there was a
requirement to make one port's clock a child of the other port's clock.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
