Hi Mark,

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 07:49:42PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:48:52PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:21:19AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> 
> > > > It feels a little fragile to rely on the organisation of the clock tree
> > > > and the naming thereof. If the IP block is ever reused on an SoC with a
> > > > different clock tree layout then we have to handle things differently.
> > > 
> > > What do you suggest then?
> > 
> > I will admit that I don't have a better suggestion.
> > 
> > Without knowing which particular constraint on the mux parent clock we
> > care about it's difficult to suggest anything useful.
> 
> There's supposed to be facilities appearing in the generic clock code
> for specifying default clock tree configurations via the DT - it's quite
> a common requirement after all.  It sounds like that should be able to
> do the job here.  Not sure if these have gone in yet or not but there's
> quite a bit of demand.

As far as I'm aware, it's not been merged yet.

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to