On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 05:57:05PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > - From the above, question: Do we want to keep that parent pointer ? > Does it make sense ? Will we have objects that are clock providers and > themselves source from multiple parent ? Or we don't care and it becomes
That happens and at times one or more of the sources is off-chip. > entirely the responsibility of a given struct clk instance to deal with > its own parenthood ? Parenthood in the core has the advantage of making > it potentially easier to represent clock nets in the device-tree. > The core would thus be able to do a search in that list based on the > clock-id passed in, or if clk_get(dev, NULL), then, use the first one. What happens if another clock gets added or the list gets reordered for some reason? > Also, it would be nice to have a way to have "generic" clock provider > drivers. For example, have a driver for the FooBar Clock chip, which is > known to provide 4 fully programmable clocks. So there could be a > generic driver for that, attached to the clock provider by the probe > code or via the device-tree, the devices clock-map's just provide the > clock ID within the chip (which output of the chip they are connected > to), and so the remaining questions is what to program in each clocks. Note that the present ARM implementations don't handle anything except the core SoC normally. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
