lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] clk: exynos4: Add alias for cpufreq related clocks
    On 06/17/2013 10:20 AM, Tushar Behera wrote:
    > On 06/11/2013 12:23 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
    >> On Monday 10 of June 2013 09:13:11 Tushar Behera wrote:
    >>> On 06/08/2013 05:20 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
    >>>> On Thursday 06 of June 2013 16:52:28 Tushar Behera wrote:
    >
    > [ ... ]
    >
    >>>>> MUX_A(mout_core, "mout_core", mout_core_p4210,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> - SRC_CPU, 16, 1, "mout_core"),
    >>>>> + SRC_CPU, 16, 1, "moutcore"),
    >>>>
    >>>> IMHO those typo corrections are not part of this patch.
    >>>
    >>> But the older drivers (before migration to CCF) were using the clock
    >>> "moutcore" (not "mout_core").
    >>
    >> I mean, this should be placed in a separate patch, as this change is not
    >> "adding alias for cpufreq related clocks", but rather fixing a typo.
    >>
    >
    > Is it ok if I split this patch into 2, one adding clock alias
    > 'mout_apll' and another one fixing the alias names 'mout_mpll',
    > 'moutcore' and 'armclk'?
    >

    I have to fix up another clock for exynos4x12 too. I feel all these
    modifications are too small to justify different patches. I would modify
    the commit message appropriately.


    > [ ... ]
    >
    >>>> Basically I don't like the idea of those global aliases, which IMHO
    >>>> should be completely dropped. Someone might not like it, but I'd go
    >>>> with the conversion of our cpufreq drivers to platform drivers
    >>>> instead, which could receive things like clocks and regulators using
    >>>> DT-based lookups.
    >>> I agree. Migration of exynos-cpufreq driver as a platform driver is the
    >>> best solution. But unless someone picks up that work, cpufreq support
    >>> for EXYNOS4 based systems is broken because of the incorrect clock
    >>> aliases.
    >>
    >> We have patches for this in our internal tree. I will clean them up a bit
    >> and submit soon.
    >>
    >
    > If you are going to submit the cpufreq driver patches for v3.11, then we
    > can ignore this patchset. Otherwise, I would prefer to get these patches
    > merged for v3.11 to get cpufreq working. Once the driver changes are
    > incorporated, we can very well modify these later.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >


    --
    Tushar Behera


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-06-19 07:21    [W:3.664 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site