On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:02:28AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 12:44:34PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > If the architecture doesn't support clk framework (like x86) we need a way
> > to
> > pass the SSP clock rate to the driver. This patch adds a field in the
> > platform
> > data 'fixed_clk_rate' that allows passing the rate.
>
> No, the way to do this is to fix x86 to enable the clock API there. The
> x86 maintainers couldn't be bothered when I submitted a patch and
> getting anyone to take a patch to make it available by default appears
> to be unreasonably hard but perhaps if someone from Intel tries the x86
> maintainers might take a patch...
Do you mean enabling CONFIG_COMMON_CLK on x86?
> We shouldn't be adding special case code to every driver that might need
> a clock that gets used on an Intel system.
I agree and it is cleaner to have the same API for all arches. However, I'm
not sure how do we create the fixed clocks then? There is nothing in ACPI
namespace (or in the ACPI 5.0 spec) that allows you to describe clocks and
their relationships.
So then we end up either:
1. Creating a custom board file for Lynxpoint which creates the
clocks. This is something I think x86 maintainers don't want to
see.
2. Creating the clock in the driver itself in its ACPI enumeration
implementation. This might work but it litters the drivers with
clock details.
Or is there something I'm missing?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
