Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:16:35 -0700 | From | Stephen Boyd <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] devicetree: bindings: qcom,mmcc: Document GDSC binding |
| |
On 04/29, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Stephen Boyd (2014-04-04 11:45:36) > > +Example: > > + clock-controller@4000000 { > > + compatible = "qcom,mmcc-msm8974"; > > + reg = <0x4000000 0x1000>; > > + #clock-cells = <1>; > > + #reset-cells = <1>; > > + > > + regulators { > > + gdsc_oxili_gx: gdsc_oxili_gx { > > + regulator-name = "gdsc_oxili_gx"; > > Hi Stephen, > > It makes sense to model the gdsc's as regulators. It also makes sense to > nest them within the clock-controller node, assuming that matches the > register manual for your part. > > However, does it make sense to put this new code under drivers/clk/qcom? > I don't see a compelling reason. How about breaking the registers out > into a header for easier reuse?
What registers are we talking about? I put this under drivers/clk/qcom because it's one device that happens to have all these different driver subsystems in it (clocks, reset, gdsc).
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |