On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> On 9/21/2010 10:51 AM, DebBarma, Tarun Kanti wrote:
>
> > #include "omap_hwmod_common_data.h"
> >
> > #include "prm-regbits-24xx.h"
> > @@ -121,6 +123,614 @@ static struct omap_hwmod omap2420_l4_wkup_hwmod = {
> > .omap_chip = OMAP_CHIP_INIT(CHIP_IS_OMAP2420),
> > .flags = HWMOD_NO_IDLEST,
> > };
> > +/* Timer Common */
> > +static char *timer_clk_src_names[] = {
> > + "sys_ck",
> > + "func_32k_ck",
> > + "alt_ck",
> > + NULL,
> > +};
>
> I have an issue with that, because this is a pure duplication of the clock_sel
> information already contained in the clock data:
>
> static const struct clksel omap24xx_gpt_clksel[] = {
> { .parent = &func_32k_ck, .rates = gpt_32k_rates },
> { .parent = &sys_ck, .rates = gpt_sys_rates },
> { .parent = &alt_ck, .rates = gpt_alt_rates },
> { .parent = NULL },
> };
>
> And duplicating the same information somewhere else is most of the time a bad
> idea.
Yep, there's no way that info should be in the hwmod data, in the current
setup. It belongs in the clkdev tables. Example below.
> That being said... I don't really know how to handle that properly :-)
>
> We have to find a better way to select the proper source clock in a soc
> independent way.
>
> Maybe Paul will have some idea?
Here's how it's done:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=128596931017785&w=2
and
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=128596931417805&w=2
- Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
