Re: [PATCH 2/7] uart: pl011: Add proper DM clock support

2020-03-26 Thread Linus Walleij
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:47 PM Andre Przywara wrote: > Even though the PL011 UART driver claims to be DM compliant, it does not > really a good job with parsing DT nodes. U-Boot seems to adhere to a > non-standard binding, either requiring to have a "skip-init" property in > the node, or to have

Re: [PATCH 2/7] uart: pl011: Add proper DM clock support

2020-03-26 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Andre, On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 11:06, André Przywara wrote: > > On 26/03/2020 16:20, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 08:47, Andre Przywara wrote: > >> > >> Even though the PL011 UART driver claims to be DM compliant, it does not > >> really a good job with parsing

Re: [PATCH 2/7] uart: pl011: Add proper DM clock support

2020-03-26 Thread André Przywara
On 26/03/2020 16:20, Simon Glass wrote: Hi Simon, > On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 08:47, Andre Przywara wrote: >> >> Even though the PL011 UART driver claims to be DM compliant, it does not >> really a good job with parsing DT nodes. U-Boot seems to adhere to a >> non-standard binding, either requiring

Re: [PATCH 2/7] uart: pl011: Add proper DM clock support

2020-03-26 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Andre, On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 08:47, Andre Przywara wrote: > > Even though the PL011 UART driver claims to be DM compliant, it does not > really a good job with parsing DT nodes. U-Boot seems to adhere to a > non-standard binding, either requiring to have a "skip-init" property in > the node,

[PATCH 2/7] uart: pl011: Add proper DM clock support

2020-03-25 Thread Andre Przywara
Even though the PL011 UART driver claims to be DM compliant, it does not really a good job with parsing DT nodes. U-Boot seems to adhere to a non-standard binding, either requiring to have a "skip-init" property in the node, or to have an extra "clock" property holding the base *frequency* value fo