Hi Angus, [snip]
> > So I'm not sure if the ipg clock is the right one for the boards that > > has different clock for ipg and per. > > So I only looked at imx6qdl.dtsi where the clocks are different > > clocks = <&clks IMX6QDL_CLK_UART_IPG>, > <&clks IMX6QDL_CLK_UART_SERIAL>; > clock-names = "ipg", "per"; > > And from that file it looks like the per clock would be the correct one. Yes, 'per' seems to be the right one. > Should the clock be looked up by id instead of by name and then have a > different code path for each imx board type ? But how to get the right clk id? The id's for all the implementations are different. Or not? > > > > >> > + } > >> > + > >> > + /* as fallback we try to get the clk rate that way */ > >> > + if (rate == 0) > >> > + rate = imx_get_uartclk(); > >> > >> Would it be better to re-write imx_get_uartclk so that both the > >> getting > >> and setting of clocks was correct ? > > > > I do not understand what you mean with that. > > > > There are other places in the code that imx_get_uartclk gets called. If > an index was added to imx_get_uartclk(int index) then you wouldn't need > the code above in the mxc_serial_setbrg function. That would also make > all of the places where imx_get_uartclk gets called return the correct > value. By index do you mean the clk id? > > It might make sense to create a new function imx7_get_uartclk that gets > called on newer SOCs so that the imx6 and earlier code doesn't need to > get changed. At what point should this be called instead of the imx_get_uartclk() function? > > >> With DM clocks enabled I don't even think it makes sense to call those > >> older functions. > > > > You mean when DM clocks are available the "new" method should be used > > and no fallback to the old mechanism? > > > > For older boards it makes sense to fallback to the single clock. On > newer boards if it returned an error instead it would have been easier > for you to figure out where the serial console failed. -- Heiko
