On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 08:16:29AM -0700, Sören Brinkmann wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 02:53:35PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > On 08/26/13 14:07, Steffen Trumtrar wrote: > > >On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 01:15:11PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > > >>I agree with Soren - let's fix the current problem and then when Steffen > > >>has patches with syscon > > >>we can look at them. > > >> > > >>If there is any discussion about early syscon registration please let me > > >>know. > > >> > > > > > >Where I'm stuck at the moment is: if I map the whole register space to the > > >parent node, how do I get its mapped address in the clkc? > > > > Steffen, > > > > if slcr is such an essential part of the SoC, you can choose to provide > > zynq_slcr_readl/writel callbacks. You can then use those callback in the > > clock driver without knowing the base address. Also, it allows you to > > hide slcr specific locking details from subsequent drivers using the > > callbacks. > > I don't think that'll work. The clkc just wraps the cock primitives and > does not provide a lot of own clock drivers - actually only one. Those > clock primitives receive an iomapped address for the clock control which > is then accessed using readl/writel(). So, wrapping all SLCR accesses in > special accessors would mean to have almost identical reimplementations > of all used clock primitives, just to replace readl/writel with > zynq_slcr_write/read. Or is there some way to make this actually work?
This is exactly my understanding, why I can't use a callback here. At least not for the clkc. str -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- 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/
