Hi Sergei,
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Sergei Shtylyov
<sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/6/2017 7:58 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Link the ARM GIC to the INTC-SYS module clock and the C4 power domain,
>> so it can be power managed using that clock in the future.
>>
>> Note that currently the GIC-400 driver doesn't support module clocks nor
>> Runtime PM, so this must be handled as a critical clock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v2:
>> - Add missing "power-domains" property,
>> - Add clock-names property,
>> - Drop RFC status,
>> - Change one-line summary prefix to match current arm-soc practices,
>> - s/GIC driver/GIC-400 driver/,
>> - Document critical clock dependency.
>> ---
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a73a4.dtsi | 13 +++++++++----
>> include/dt-bindings/clock/r8a73a4-clock.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a73a4.dtsi
>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a73a4.dtsi
>> index 6fb7eaba91262edf..1f5c9f6dddba9366 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a73a4.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a73a4.dtsi
>> @@ -467,6 +467,9 @@
>> <0 0xf1004000 0 0x2000>,
>> <0 0xf1006000 0 0x2000>;
>> interrupts = <GIC_PPI 9 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) |
>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH)>;
>> + clocks = <&mstp4_clks R8A73A4_CLK_INTC_SYS>;
>> + clock-names = "clk";
>
> Do we really need such "clock-names"?
Yes. The ARM/GIC maintainers objected against not using clock-names, as
some GIC variants have multiple clocks.
Hence commit afbbd23381767aec ("irqchip/gic: Document optional Clock and
Power Domain properties") was born...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
