On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> But if you still don't like this, let me cook a counter-patch so
>> I can realized on my own how terribly wrong I am...
>
> I'm going to yank all of the clk_register_clkdev() calls out
> imminently
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
But if you still don't like this, let me cook a counter-patch so
I can realized on my own how terribly wrong I am...
I'm going to yank all of the clk_register_clkdev() calls out
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> >> > 1. Duplicate each of the; clk_reg_prcmu_*(), clk_reg_prcc_pclk(),
> >> >
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> > 1. Duplicate each of the; clk_reg_prcmu_*(), clk_reg_prcc_pclk(),
>> > clk_reg_prcc_kclk() calls into your proposed u8500_clk_init_dt(),
>> >
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
1. Duplicate each of the; clk_reg_prcmu_*(), clk_reg_prcc_pclk(),
clk_reg_prcc_kclk() calls into your
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
1. Duplicate each of the; clk_reg_prcmu_*(),
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> >> I really do not like the approach of uglifying something and then
> >> beautifying it later... I prefer each step in isolation to be good
> >> looking, or you will be confused when traversing
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
I really do not like the approach of uglifying something and then
beautifying it later... I prefer each step in isolation to be good
looking, or you will be confused when
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> You just reminded me that I'm still sitting on this old patch
> to add lots of #ifdef CONFIG_ATAGS to ux500 in the places that need
> to get cut out. I don't think I'm able to update that patch at
> the moment, but I can send you the old
On Friday 23 August 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
> I think this is perfectly realistic.
>
> You're not going to duplicate each clk_register_clkdev(),
> which makes it way smaller than the original function,
> and since one of the function will be inside a
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_OF
> #endif
>
> After
On Friday 23 August 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
I think this is perfectly realistic.
You're not going to duplicate each clk_register_clkdev(),
which makes it way smaller than the original function,
and since one of the function will be inside a
#ifdef CONFIG_OF
#endif
After we switch
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
You just reminded me that I'm still sitting on this old patch
to add lots of #ifdef CONFIG_ATAGS to ux500 in the places that need
to get cut out. I don't think I'm able to update that patch at
the moment, but I can send you
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> I really do not like the approach of uglifying something and then
>> beautifying it later... I prefer each step in isolation to be good
>> looking, or you will be confused when traversing the history.
>
> So then we have a few options, some
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
I really do not like the approach of uglifying something and then
beautifying it later... I prefer each step in isolation to be good
looking, or you will be confused when traversing the history.
So then we have a few
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> >> Isn't it possible to fork a function u8500_clk_init_dt() to add all the
> >> clocks in the DT probe path and keep this function
> >>
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
Isn't it possible to fork a function u8500_clk_init_dt() to add all the
clocks in the DT probe path and keep this function
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> Isn't it possible to fork a function u8500_clk_init_dt() to add all the
>> clocks in the DT probe path and keep this function
>> u8500_clk_init() as it is?
>
> Yes, we probably could do that, but as
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > This patch enables clocks to be specified from Device Tree via phandles
> > to the "prcc-kernel-clock" node.
> >
> > Cc: Mike Turquette
> > Cc: Ulf Hansson
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
> (...)
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> This patch enables clocks to be specified from Device Tree via phandles
> to the "prcc-kernel-clock" node.
>
> Cc: Mike Turquette
> Cc: Ulf Hansson
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
(...)
> static struct clk *prcmu_clk[PRCMU_NUM_CLKS];
> static
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
This patch enables clocks to be specified from Device Tree via phandles
to the prcc-kernel-clock node.
Cc: Mike Turquette mturque...@linaro.org
Cc: Ulf Hansson ulf.hans...@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
This patch enables clocks to be specified from Device Tree via phandles
to the prcc-kernel-clock node.
Cc: Mike Turquette mturque...@linaro.org
Cc: Ulf Hansson
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
Isn't it possible to fork a function u8500_clk_init_dt() to add all the
clocks in the DT probe path and keep this function
u8500_clk_init() as it is?
Yes, we probably could do
> > This patch enables clocks to be specified from Device Tree via phandles
> > to the "prcc-kernel-clock" node.
> >
> > Cc: Mike Turquette
> > Cc: Ulf Hansson
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
>
> Could you please fold this patch into a "common PRCC device tree
> support" patch instead. Thus
This patch enables clocks to be specified from Device Tree via phandles
to the prcc-kernel-clock node.
Cc: Mike Turquette mturque...@linaro.org
Cc: Ulf Hansson ulf.hans...@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
Could you please fold this patch into a common PRCC
On 6 June 2013 14:17, Lee Jones wrote:
> This patch enables clocks to be specified from Device Tree via phandles
> to the "prcc-kernel-clock" node.
>
> Cc: Mike Turquette
> Cc: Ulf Hansson
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
Could you please fold this patch into a "common PRCC device tree
support"
On 6 June 2013 14:17, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
This patch enables clocks to be specified from Device Tree via phandles
to the prcc-kernel-clock node.
Cc: Mike Turquette mturque...@linaro.org
Cc: Ulf Hansson ulf.hans...@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
This patch enables clocks to be specified from Device Tree via phandles
to the "prcc-kernel-clock" node.
Cc: Mike Turquette
Cc: Ulf Hansson
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
---
drivers/clk/ux500/u8500_clk.c | 30 ++
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
diff --git
This patch enables clocks to be specified from Device Tree via phandles
to the prcc-kernel-clock node.
Cc: Mike Turquette mturque...@linaro.org
Cc: Ulf Hansson ulf.hans...@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
---
drivers/clk/ux500/u8500_clk.c | 30
28 matches
Mail list logo
