On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 02:23:25PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 03:07:40 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:51:59PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 01:54:41PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 02:38:37 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > > > > > 3. We make the acpi_create_platform_device() match on, lets say > > > > > "INT33C" (a partial match), and in such case it assumes that > > > > > we are > > > > > running on Lynxpoint. It will then create platform device > > > > > for 'clk-lpt'. > > > > > > > > 4. Now the clk-lpt driver creates the clocks. > > > > > > > > 5. The SPI driver gets the clock it wants. > > > > > > > That sounds reasonable to me. Mark, what do you think? > > > > > > Sounds sensible, yes - about what I'd expect. Is it possible to match > > > on CPUID or similar information (given that this is all in the SoC) > > > instead of ACPI, that might be more robust I guess? > > > > I can look into that but I'm not sure whether there are any other way to > > detect are we running on Lynxpoint or not, except the device IDs (and even > > that is not 100% guaranteed because of ACPI _CIDs). > > Well, we only need the clock when the SPI controller is going to be used, > so even if we have a reliable way to detect Lynxpoint, that may be not enough > (the BIOS may not expose the SPI to us, for example, in which case it will be > pointless to create the clock for it).
Good point. I'll do the checking in acpi_create_platform_device() based on ACPI IDs so that we can be sure that the SPI controller is really there. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
