Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754880AbbK0QYh (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:24:37 -0500 Received: from mail-lf0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]:33762 "EHLO mail-lf0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754597AbbK0QYc (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:24:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151124005919.GN19156@codeaurora.org> References: <1447941480-27487-1-git-send-email-georgi.djakov@linaro.org> <1447941480-27487-5-git-send-email-georgi.djakov@linaro.org> <20151121003953.GD28998@codeaurora.org> <20151122021820.GK30882@usrtlx11787.corpusers.net> <20151124005919.GN19156@codeaurora.org> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:24:30 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] clk: qcom: Add RPM clock controller driver From: Bjorn Andersson To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Georgi Djakov , "agross@codeaurora.org" , "mturquette@baylibre.com" , "linux-clk@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1718 Lines: 41 On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 11/21, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >> On Fri 20 Nov 16:39 PST 2015, Stephen Boyd wrote: [..] >> Do you foresee that there will be an implementation of the generic rpmcc >> or is it just a way to "standardize" the dt binding? >> > > I don't see any problem with implementing the RPM clock > controller as one file or two files (one for platform bus based > RPM modules and one for SMD bus RPM modules). The compatible can > be the same for both struct driver instances, while the bus will > pick the right driver. I suspect we'll need SoC specific > compatibles though to export the right set of clocks, so having > the generic compatible is mostly to find these rpm clock > controllers so that we know to skip registering the XO clock from > the GCC driver and not some generic implementation of the driver. > Ahh, now I get it. So the generic rpmcc to be able to check if we have a rpmcc instance and then the specific for the actual implementation. I'm +1 on that. > There's probably a subset of the clocks that's always the same > between devices, so if we had to we could match the generic > compatible and provide limited functionality. > After looking at a couple of platforms I don't think it's worth the effort of having a common list of rpm clocks. My suggestion is that we just continue with the suggested approach (having platform specific rpmcc defines and tables) Regards, Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/