On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Li Yang-R58472 <r58...@freescale.com> wrote: >>>> I've avoided requiring clock nodes to have a separate sub node for >>>> each output because it is more verbose and it prevents clock >>>> providers from having child nodes for other purposes. Are you >>>> concerned that >>> >>> I don't see why there should be child nodes for other purposes under >>clock node. >>> >>>> having the <phandle>+output name pair will be difficult to manage? >>> >>> That's part of my concern. >> >>I was concerned about this too until I found precedence for doing the >>exact same thing in the pci binding (and ePAPR). Mixing phandle and a >>string in this way doesn't bother me anymore. > > Where exactly can I get the sample code for handling this binding?
In my test-devicetree branch. See the file drivers/of/clock.c[1] from commit [2]: [1] http://git.secretlab.ca/?p=linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=drivers/of/clock.c;h=26bd70c293d3ec23cbef3f67e0853069b6c24dc0;hb=fadbfb859485148756533b28203b7b0188a17250 [2] http://git.secretlab.ca/?p=linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=fadbfb859485148756533b28203b7b0188a17250 g. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
