Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:34699 "EHLO mail-wg0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752313AbbCKNVb (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:21:31 -0400 Received: by wgha1 with SMTP id a1so9251827wgh.1 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 06:21:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2353601.si5uCETVn2@wuerfel> References: <1425915402-10012-1-git-send-email-eliad@wizery.com> <6286151.8rcX893TN6@wuerfel> <2353601.si5uCETVn2@wuerfel> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:21:29 +0100 Message-ID: (sfid-20150311_142136_765576_5C5E591A) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] ARM: dts: igep00x0: add wl18xx bindings From: Javier Martinez Canillas To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Tony Lindgren , Eliad Peller , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Sekhar Nori , Kevin Hilman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 11 March 2015 14:07:11 Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> >> Right now it seems that all boards in mainline with a WiLink6 part are >> using internal clocks. So as a first step I think that adding an >> optional refclock-frequency and tcxoclock-frequency properties should >> be enough. >> >> It would be good if the driver supports getting the refclock and >> tcxoclock from an external provider in case a board gets these from >> external clocks but that can be done as a followup if there are boards >> in the future using that design. >> >> But please bear in mind that I'm not familiar with the clock handling >> in WiLink6 since the WiLink8 part used in the IGEP boards does not >> need these clocks and I only looked at Luciano's previous patches and >> the WiLink today driver today. So it would be good if Eliad can double >> check my assumptions to see if those are correct. > > Sounds good. I'd also be fine with not implementing the case for > external clocks in the code until we need (and can test) it, but > I think it should be specified in the binding from the start. > Agreed. Best regards, Javier