On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:36 AM Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:53 PM Anson Huang <anson.hu...@nxp.com> wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 04/10] clk: imx: Support building SCU clock driver > > > as > > > module > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:06 AM Anson Huang <anson.hu...@nxp.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/clk/imx/Makefile > > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/imx/Makefile > > > > @@ -21,9 +21,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MXC_CLK) += \ > > > > clk-sscg-pll.o \ > > > > clk-pll14xx.o > > > > > > > > -obj-$(CONFIG_MXC_CLK_SCU) += \ > > > > - clk-scu.o \ > > > > - clk-lpcg-scu.o > > > > +mxc-clk-scu-objs += clk-lpcg-scu.o > > > > +mxc-clk-scu-objs += clk-scu.o > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_MXC_CLK_SCU) += mxc-clk-scu.o > > > > > > It looks like the two modules are tightly connected, one is useless > > > without the > > > other. How about linking them into a combined module and dropping the > > > export statement? > > > > > > > From HW perspective, the SCU clock driver and LPCG SCU clock driver are > > different, > > SCU clock driver is for those clocks controlled by system controller (M4 > > which runs a firmware), > > while LPCG SCU clock is for those clock gates inside module, which means AP > > core can > > control it directly via register access, no need to via SCU API. > > Sorry, I misread the patch in multiple ways. First of all, you already put > clk-scu.o and clk-lpcg-scu.o files into a combined loadable module, and > I had only looked at clk-scu.c. > > What I actually meant here was to link clk-scu.o together with clk-imx8qxp.o > (and possibly future chip-specific files) into a loadable module and drop > the export.
It sounds like a good idea to me. Actually I planned to combine them into one driver in the future. Regards Aisheng > > > So, I think it is NOT that tightly connected, it is because they are both > > for i.MX8 SoCs with SCU > > inside, so they are put together in the Makefile. > > > > If the export statement is acceptable, I think it is better to just keep > > it, make sense? > > There is nothing wrong with the export as such, this was just an > idea to simplify the logic. > > Arnd