On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:32:04PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Olof Johansson wrote at Wednesday, January 18, 2012 10:32 PM: > >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 05:16:52PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/nvidia,tegra20-car.txt > >> > +* NVIDIA Tegra20 Clock And Reset Controller > >> > + > >> > +This binding uses the common clock binding: > >> > +Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt > >> > + > >> > +The CAR (Clock And Reset) Controller on Tegra is the HW module responsible > >> > +for muxing and gating Tegra's clocks, and setting their rates. > >> > + > >> > +Required properties : > >> > +- compatible : Should be "nvidia,<chip>-car" > >> > +- reg : Should contain CAR registers location and length > >> > +- clocks : Should contain phandle and clock specifiers for two clocks: > >> > + the 32 KHz "32k_in", and the board-specific oscillator "osc". > >> > +- clock-names : Should contain a list of strings, with values "32k_in", > >> > + and "osc". > >> > >> Hmm. I'd prefer to just ditch the notion of "clock-names" in the cases > >> where it isn't strictly necessary. Just because some vendors don't want > >> to define an order between their clocks doesn't mean it's a good idea > >> for everybody to use that model. In this case, just declaring that the > >> two clocks refs have to be to those two clocks in that order should > >> be sufficient. > > > > OK, that seems reasonable. I'm happy using of_clk_get() rather than > > of_clk_get_by_name(). I guess that means we should just avoid any > > discussion of clock-output-names too. > > Sounds good to me. Let's make sure Grant is OK with it too though. Yes, I agree. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
