On 04/17/2013 06:14 AM, Prashant Gaikwad wrote: > On Monday 15 April 2013 11:17 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 04/15/2013 01:31 AM, Lucas Stach wrote: >>> The USB clocks are just clock gates, so no need to set a specific clock. >>> In fact trying to set a specific clock is just a NOP if the requested >>> clockrate is the same as those of the parent (clk_m) or will trigger a >>> WARN_ON() if rates don't match up. >>> >>> As we are not setting a specific rate, nor activating the clocks at >>> init, there is no point in keeping the the usb entries in the clock init >>> table. >> Peter, Prashant, I'd like to confirm that the usb* clocks really do have >> clk_m as their parent; we're sure they aren't driven by the 12MHz PLL_U >> output? >> >> Either way, I guess it's safe to take this patch since the clock would >> be fixed rate; I'd just like to make sure the clock driver is accurate. > > These are controller clocks and are not driven by PLL_U. So just to confirm: does that mean that they truly /are/ direct children of clk_m, just like the driver says right now? -- 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
