On 11/21/2015 03:04 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 07:50:45AM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> On 11/17/2015 02:55 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> This is going to be really common but I'm not sure I see a problem with >>> it in terms of what Raphael is proposing - could you go into more detail >>> on the problem you see here? >> If clock provider is not a device driver and it depends on clocks of >> another clock >> provider you cannot 'translate' this dependency as dependency between >> devices, > What makes you say that this is the case? There should be nothing > stopping us having dependencies between two devices of the same type.
To be clear I described situation that one clock provider uses clock of another clock provider and consumer is not modeled as device. > >> so this RFD does not cover them. >> Additionally if you look into kernel there are many calls in form >> 'clk_get(NULL, name)', >> it suggests that not only clock providers are consumers without >> underlying device driver. > Like I said in my earlier reply: > > | > - many clock providers, irq domains are not provided by devices, > > | That seems like something we can and possibly should change if we want. > > This applies just as much to consumers as to providers. OK, then it is just something to do :) Regards Andrzej -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
