On 12/19/12 10:36, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:20:30AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 12/19/12 09:26, Josh Cartwright wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:02:15PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> [..]
>> Can you show the code at those line numbers? There are quite a few
>> WARN_ONs in that code and it's possible the WARN_ON is the one
>> introduced in this patch.
> It looks like we're not hitting the WARN_ON() you added, but several of
> the other ones.
Ah it seems that zynq is doing different things with the clock names.
The periph clock is this
uart_clk: uart_clk {
#clock-cells = <1>;
compatible =
"xlnx,zynq-periph-clock";
clocks = <&iopll &armpll &ddrpll>;
reg = <0x154>;
clock-output-names =
"uart0_ref_clk",
"uart1_ref_clk";
and so zynq_periph_clk_setup() wants to register clocks named uart_clk,
uart0_ref_clk, and uart1_ref_clk. But my change causes uart0_ref_clk to
be registered twice because of the way of_init_clk_data() detects the
init.name property from the binding (we use clock-output-names[0] and
only use np->name if there is no clock-output-names).
Perhaps we need to make of_init_clk_data() take an integer argument
indicating which name to use? So of_init_clk_data(np, &init, 0) would
mean use the np->name as the init.name, and of_init_clk_data(np, &init,
1) would mean use the clock-output-names[0] property,
of_init_clk_data(np, &init, 2) would mean use the clock-output-names[1]
property.
Or perhaps we should think of some way to generate unique names from the
bindings that the clock APIs can use internally.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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/
