Hello,
On 2010-09-06 18:17, Jassi Brar wrote:
I'm thinking of making the parent clock an argument to the
s5pv210_fimc_setup_clks().
Yes, that's better since the relevant clock is managed by the CMU
What do you mean by the CMU? This function is intended to be called from
board startup code.
I really don't like the idea of passing clock name through the platform data
and letting driver to mess with clock's parents.
In case of SPI the clock mux and scalar is present _within_ the SPI
controller and having to touch SPI regs from outside the driver isn't
what I prefer.
I know. It is the same case as with SDHCI and UART controllers. I have
an idea how to solve this in a bit more cleaner way. I hope to post a
proposition soon.
Machine startup code is the
last place where such things should be changed.
Until I am enlightened, I'd like to think otherwise.
I think the board designer would already have thought out the clock sourcing
hierarchy. Setting appropriate parents once at boot-time and having drivers
not worry about it, should be better.
Definitely, but in our case kernel the default fimc_sclk parent points
to non-existing clock.
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung Poland R&D Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
