On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:48:52PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:21:19AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:

> > > It feels a little fragile to rely on the organisation of the clock tree
> > > and the naming thereof. If the IP block is ever reused on an SoC with a
> > > different clock tree layout then we have to handle things differently.
> > 
> > What do you suggest then?
> 
> I will admit that I don't have a better suggestion.
> 
> Without knowing which particular constraint on the mux parent clock we
> care about it's difficult to suggest anything useful.

There's supposed to be facilities appearing in the generic clock code
for specifying default clock tree configurations via the DT - it's quite
a common requirement after all.  It sounds like that should be able to
do the job here.  Not sure if these have gone in yet or not but there's
quite a bit of demand.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to