On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Lohithakshan, Ranjith wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Menon, Nishanth > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:55 PM
... > > > + CLK(NULL, "virt_13m_ck", &virt_13m_ck, CK_343X | CK_35XX), > > > + CLK(NULL, "virt_16_8m_ck", &virt_16_8m_ck, CK_3430ES2 | CK_35XX), > > > + CLK(NULL, "virt_19_2m_ck", &virt_19_2m_ck, CK_343X | CK_35XX), > > > + CLK(NULL, "virt_26m_ck", &virt_26m_ck, CK_343X | CK_35XX), > > [...] > > Could we have CK_3XXX? I mean this would probably happen when 36/37xx gets > > introduced also.. does that make sense? > > > Yes, it would help to have a CK_3XXX defined to cover all common OMAP3 > clocks. > The tables would look simpler going forward. > > Paul, what do you think? Sounds like a good idea to me. - Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
