Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:57:21 +0000 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] spi: tegra114: add spi driver |
| |
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:36:41AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 02/20/2013 10:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Since we can extend the list of clocks it doesn't seem like there's > > much issue here, especially if some of them are optional?
> Yes, there's certainly a way to extend the binding in a > backwards-compatible way.
> However, I have seen in Rob and/or Grant push back on not fully > defining bindings in the past - i.e. actively planning to initially > create a minimal binding and extend it in the future, rather than > completely defining it up-front.
That sounds like the current stuff with a minimal definition is OK?
> > Though in general it seems like this sort of mux really should be > > in the clock stuff anyway.
> How do you see that working: something automatic inside clk_set_rate() > seeing that some other parent could provide the rate, so the clock > could be reparented, or ...?
That'd certainly be nice as a feature, but it'd also be good to just be able to define this sort of multi-parent mux in a generic way in DT since it's pretty common even if the actual implementation of picking a parent ends up getting open coded in individual drivers. A library function might also be a way of handling it short term. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |