On Friday 04 July 2014, 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.
>
> Well, I first made it into the mach- directory, and then was told to
> move it in the driver itself, so we're kind of running out of options
> :)
How about having a property in the clock provider node that forces a
specific value for the mux? I think that's generally the preferred solution
for any clock settings that go beyond what an OS can be expected to figure
out for itself.
Arnd
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
