On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Chander Kashyap wrote: > >> + [Core Clocks] > >> + > >> + Clock ID > >> + ---------------------------- > >> + > >> + fin_pll 1 > >> + > >> + [Clock Gate for Special Clocks] > >> + > >> + Clock ID > >> + ---------------------------- > >> + sclk_uart0 128 > >> + sclk_uart1 129 > >> + sclk_uart2 130 > > > >> + > >> + [Peripheral Clock Gates] > >> + > >> + Clock ID > >> + ---------------------------- > >> + > >> + aclk66_peric 256 > >> + uart0 257 > >> + uart1 258 > > > > It looks like these are actually separate things. Wouldn't it be more sensible > > to have separate device nodes for each of the lists and use a local index? > I have listed the parent clock first, then the child clocks, to > maintain readability. > > > > What numbers are used in the data sheet? > I didn't get your point? I would have expected three clock device nodes, one for fin_pll (presumably a fixed-rate clock?), one for "special clocks" and one for "peripheral clock gates", and a number space starting at '1' for each of them, rather than having a shared node and numbers starting at '1', '128' and '256', which looks a bit clumsy. Did you take the ID number definitions from a data sheet, or did you make up the numbers yourself for the purpose of defining a binding? Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
