On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Maxime Coquelin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 08/11/2015 01:36 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > >> On 08/11/2015 12:11 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Maxime Coquelin > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> How can we pass CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF flag to a specific clock on STi > >>>> platform? > >>> > >>> Add the flag to the relevant clocks in the C code, e.g. in > >>> clk_register_flexgen(): > >>> > >>> if (!strcmp(name, "clk-icn-cpu")) > >>> init.flags |= CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF; > > > > The main problem I see with this proposal is that clk_register_flexgen() is > > called for several SoCs (STiH407/410/418...). > > Each of these SoCs have this clock, but maybe STiH407 will need the flag, > > but not STiH410 and STiH418. > > So I think the best place to set this information is in DT, where the > > differentiation is made between the SoCs. > > If (of_machine_is_compatible("st,stih410")) ...
This is getting very messy. Ideally we'd like to keep platform code out of device drivers. Critical clock description belongs in DT for our use-case. We can write code to extract the information from there and set the flag is Mike's solution is deemed appropriate. With regards to your "Software Policy Vs Hardware Description" comment; we already have 10's of "Software Policy" bindings which do not describe hardware in the purest sense; frequency specifications, line/voltage levels, GPIO configuration, the list goes on. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
