Hi Bob, On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 17:55:52, Bob Dunlop wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 06 at 05:01, Nori, Sekhar wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 18:30:04, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > > > I don't think you should ascribe *your* patch to Bob. There's > > > Suggested-by: line if you want to credit Bob. > > > > Bob, do you have an opinion on this? If not, I will go with what > > Sergei is suggesting. > > I have no problem one way or the other, we all know who we are.
Okay, I will do what Sergei is suggesting then. > > Anyway I'd like to propose a simpler patch that covers both boards in one. > Fewer files touched than the original da850 patch. > > Add the ref_clk_rate parameter to the davinci_soc_info structure and > perform the clock adjustment in davinci_common_init(). The code assumes Lets not extend davinci_soc_info any further. We need to be looking at ways of reducing its usage (for example by making GPIO code use platform device). Also, refclk is a board information not soc information so placing it there makes it misplaced. > that if which to tweak the ref_clk it will be the first one listed in > cpu_clocks[] which is the case for all boards sofar. > > The only downside is you need to export the davinci_soc_info_dm646x struct > in order to tweak it. That's not very elegant as well. SoC information structure for a given SoC should be private to the SoC specific file. Making it public will open it up for abuse. Thanks, Sekhar _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
