>>> I've avoided requiring clock nodes to have a separate sub node for
>>> each output because it is more verbose and it prevents clock
>>> providers from having child nodes for other purposes. Are you
>>> concerned that
>>
>> I don't see why there should be child nodes for other purposes under
>c
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Li Yang-R58472 wrote:
I've avoided requiring clock nodes to have a separate sub node for
each output because it is more verbose and it prevents clock
providers from having child nodes for other purposes. Are you
concerned that
>>>
>>> I don't s
>>>*-clock is named for the signal name for the ''clock input''
>>>of the device. it should describe the function of the signal for that
>>>device, rather than the name of the system-wide clock line. For
>>>example, a UART with two clocks - one for baud-rate clocking, and the
>>>other for register
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Li Yang-R58472 wrote:
*-clock is named for the signal name for the ''clock input''
of the device. it should describe the function of the signal for that
device, rather than the name of the system-wide clock line. For
example, a UART with two clocks -
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Li Yang-R58472 wrote:
> It looks like the previous sending didn't hit the mailing list. Resend.
>
> Hi Grant,
>
> I have some comment on this proposal.
The email addr you're using isn't subscribed, so mailman held the
message for moderation. I've approved it now
It looks like the previous sending didn't hit the mailing list. Resend.
Hi Grant,
I have some comment on this proposal.
>Subject: Review Request: New proposal for device tree clock binding.
>
>Hi Ben (well, hello to everyone, but I'm particularly interested in
>Ben's feedback),
>
>Jeremy and I
