On Wednesday 21 August 2013 05:27 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>
>> With support to parse clock data from DT, move all main and optional
>> clock information from hwmod to DT.
>>
>> We still retain clocks in hwmod for devices which do not have a DT node.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi | 100 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_44xx_data.c | 112
>> ----------------------------
>> 2 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 112 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi
>> index 8e142f9..4dddf64 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi
>> @@ -106,6 +106,8 @@
>> compatible = "ti,omap-counter32k";
>> reg = <0x4a304000 0x20>;
>> ti,hwmods = "counter_32k";
>> + clocks = <&sys_32k_ck>;
>> + clock-names = "fck";
>
> Shouldn't these patches be using the official DT clock binding format?
They are, already.
> Either the 'clocks' property should be something like:
>
> clocks = <&prm 10>;
That depends on the #clock-cells for the clock provider node. These patches
are based on Teros series to move all OMAP clocks to DT [1], and the clock
providers
in his series have the #clock-cells set to 0.
So the clock bindings do not mandate
clocks = <&clk-provider index>
or
clocks = <&clk-provider>
It just depends on how the clk-provider node is defined.
[1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/100117
>
> or a change to the bindings needs to be discussed and implemented.
>
>
> - 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
