On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
<jav...@dowhile0.org> wrote:
> I think that patch [0] should not be needed since for external clocks,
> the IP providing the clocks should have its own clock driver and for
> internal clocks, a property should be used instead as you said.
>
>> If there is no external clock provider for this chip and the clocks
>> are provided by the device itself, then all we need is a clock-frequency
>> property in the device node.
>>
>
> Agreed, IIUC Luciano wanted to expose the internal clocks by
> registering in the common clock framework but if those clocks are not
> really accessible from outside the wlan chip, then I also think that a
> device node property should be used instead.
>
how should i describe multiple clock-frequency properties (there are 2
relevant clocks) in this case?
does something like the following makes sense?
wlcore: wlcore@2 {
...
refclock: refclock {
compatible = "fixed-clock";
#clock-cells = <0>;
clock-frequency = <38400000>;
};
}
Eliad.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
