On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 09:18:27AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: ... > You still haven't given any benefits of supporting multiple clocks. It's > slightly fewer dts lines, but not really anything else. > What's more important than fewer dts lines is fewer nodes. Isn't it the whole point of #clock-cells? In the real imx example I gave, with #clock-cells support, I can have only one node to represent 3 fixed clocks.
... > I don't think people are going to define clocks generically in DT at the > mux, clk gate and divider level anyway. If you only have a few clocks > then you may, and 1 clock output per node is probably okay. If you have > hundreds of clocks then you probably won't, and will have a SOC specific > binding anyway. > Why? Take a look at clk-imx6q.c[1], you will find except pll and pfd, all the imx6q clocks are represented as gate, divider and mux, and we should not need a SoC specific binding for them. -- Regards, Shawn [1] http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=imx/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx6q.c;h=d5aaced3496439653238f18a399c466fc7264f4e;hb=1a9cf33bf1df7336b75235ae22fde83c6341c38e _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
